'^;c^ '-'^^r.^V" %'^?^^^,o^' "-'^:v:^\N . ^: 



;% 









■■'^' •»■ 



■0- 






^ y,-:^^' 













•x^^- 



. ' -^ 



a\ 



vV r. 



.\0 °<. 



'h ' 






■\^ 









>. 















"b. 






"^ .< 



A 



,-^^ 



f %■ 



^' '^J-'. 



.# 









'"•'*,/.<":••.. 






-bo^ 



"^-/^ V^ 



.^^^^ 



-/ 



o. 



,0' 






\> >- '/, '^ 












> z 



% ,v^' 



%^^ 



A 









^\.. 









* .\> 






' „ 



.^^ 



"^^ 



..V 






■\ 






xoq. 






, '^'-OiA-'' 



- <^- 



' 



■^^' .' 



c> 






.^"^^z-^.^'- ^/^'^ ^:^^/■\'^" 




'/ 



TflK 



AlERICAI STATESMAN: 

A POLITICAL HISTORY, 

r 

EXHIBITING THE 

ORIGIN, NATUBE AND PRACTICAL OPERATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES ; 

THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF PARTIES; 

AND THE 

VIEWS OP DISTINGUISHED STATESMEN ON QUESTIONS OP FOREIGN 
AND DOMESTIC POLICY; 

WITH AN APPENDIX, 

CONTAINING 
AND OTHEK USEFUL MATTER. 



BY ANDREW W. YOUNa, 

Author of " Soibnob op Govbrnmbnt," " First Lessons in Civil Gotkrnmbnt," " CiTizBs'g 
Manual op Gotkrnmbnt and Law'* 



N E W-Y R K : 
I>ERBY & JACKSON, 119 NASSAU-STREET. 

INDIANA -STEARNS & SPICER, INDIANAPOLIS. 
1857. 






.\>3-^ 






•c- 



PREF i CE 



The general diffusion of political knowleage is essential to 
public prosperity, and to the security of our liberties. A gov- 
ernment, whatever its form, is not really free, when its theory 
and practical operation are not understood by the great body 
of those from whom its powers are derived. Universal suffrage 
is valuable only as its exercise is directed by an enlightened 
public sentiment. 

While these propositions are universally acknowledged as 
self-evident truths, it must be confessed, that the knowledge 
of our government is too limited to secure the uninterrupted 
enjoyment of "the benefits of good administration. A large por- 
tion of our citizens assume the duties and responsibilities of 
freemen, without the information requisite to a faithful dis- 
charge of these vast responsibilities devolved upon them by the 
constitution and laws. Many of them, ambitious of civil honors, 
accept important public trusts, with attainments in political 
science too circumscribed to enable them to render efficient ser- 
vice to the state, or to gain to themselves an honorable dis- 
tinction. In the character and acts of many of our legislative 
bodies, does the truth of this remark find abundant confirma- 
tion. 

The design of this work is to bring within the reach of our 
citizens generally, in a single volume, the greatest possible 
amount of that kind of information which all ought to possess ; 
but which is to be obtained elsewhere only in works so volumi- 
nous and expensive as to render it inaccessible to the greater 
portion of the community. 

A prominent and essential feature of the work is, that on all 
controverted G[uestions, whether involving constitutional prin- 



IV PREFACE. 

ciples, or mere considerations of expediency, the substance of 
the arguments on both sides has been faithfully and impar- 
tially given. On subjects of party controversy, the author has 
withheld the expression of his own opinions, deeming it best to 
leave the unconfirmed politician to the exercise of his own 
unbiased judgment in forming his conclusions. By thus pre- 
senting the different views of our ablest statesmen, the work 
will be rendered valuable to the political student as a consti- 
tutional expositor, and as a guide to the formation of enlight- 
ened opinions on questions of public policy ; while to the 
more advanced politician, the great variety of its matter will 
make it convenient and useful as a book of reference. 

Neither the capacity nor the design of this work, has per- 
mitted the introduction of local politics. The selection of 
matter has been almost exclusively confined to subjects of a 
national character. Notwithstanding the volume has been 
swelled far beyond its intended size — embracing most of the 
principal subjects of our political history — much useful and 
interesting matter has been necessarily passed over, which may 
hereafter appear in a supplementary volume. 

It has been an object of much care to make the work a reli- 
able one. Its statements are founded principally upon the 
official records of the government. In the condensation of 
speeches, reports, and other documents, pains have been taken 
to present their strongest points, as well as their true meaning. 
Where recourse to other sources of information has been neces- 
sary, reference has been had to approved and standard works, 
among which are those of Marshall, Pitkin, Bancroft, HiJdreth, 
and others. 

That the work, nevertheless, contains some slight inaccura- 
cies, is not improbable. It is believed, however, that it will be 
found free from material errors ; and that it will be acknow- 
ledged to possess claims to the public favor, and conduce in 
some good degree, to a higher and a more general appreciation 
of our political institutions. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES, AND THEIR FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. 

Origin of our republican institutions, 21. Charter governments ; landing of the 
puritans, 22. Government of the New England colonies, 23-26. Boyal or 
provincial governments, 26-30. Proprietary governments, 30 

CHAPTER II. 

TAXATION OF THE COLONIES, AND OTHER CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION. — INDE- 
PENDENCE SECURED. 

The right of colonial taxation by England denied, 33. British navigation acts, 
86. Manufactures in colonies suppi-essed, 36. Stamp act, 37-39. Congress 
of deputies' petition for relief, 38. Franklin deputed to England, 39. Parlia- 
ment asserts the right to tax in all cases, 39. Glass, paper, &c., taxed, 40. 
Enforcement of the laws resisted, 41. Non-importing associations, 41, 42. 
General court adjourned to Cambridge, 42. Boston riots, 43. Tea destroyed, 
43-44. Boston port bill, 44, 45. Congresses of 1774 and 1775 ; hostilities 
commenced, 46. Independence declared, 47. 

CHAPTER III, 

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDERATION. — TREATY VTITH FRANCE. — NEGO- 
TIATION WITH GREAT BRITAIN. PEACE. CALL FOR A CONVENTION. 

Nature of the confederation, 48. State governments formed. 49. Alliance with 
France; attempts at conciliation, 50, 51. Congress of Vienna, 51. Treaty of 
peace, 52. Defects of the confederation, 52. DifBculties with Great Britain 
and Spain, 55, 56. Shay's insurrection, 66. Movements for a convention, 67. 
Cession of the western lands, 58. Anti-slavery ordinance, 68, 59. 

CHAPTER IV. 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION IN FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 

Constitutional convention organized, 60. Plans of government proposed, 61-62. 
Slavery and the rule of apportionment, 64-71. Compromises, 70, 71. Execu- 
tive department, plan of, 71, 72. Federalists and anti-federalists 73. Constitu- 
tion ratified, 73, 74. 

CHAPTER V. 

MEETING OF THE FIRST CONGRESS. — A SYSTEM OF FINANCE ADOPTED. — THE 
FUNDING OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. 

Meeting of Congress in New York ; election of Washington and Adams ; acts for 
the encouragement of manufactures and navigation, 75, 76. Power of removal, 
76. Washington's cabinet; constitutional amendments, 77. Plans of finance • 
funding of the public debt, 78-86. North Carolina cedes her western lands, 
8?. Scat of government, 85, 86. 



VI CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER VI. 

EXCISE ON DISTILLED LIQUORS. — INCORPORATION OF A NATIONAL BANE. — ^AP- 
PORTIONMENT BILL. — WAR WITH THE WESTERN INDIANS. 

Proposed increase of duties, 86. Opposition to the administration, 87. National 
bank, 88-91. Kentucky admitted into the union, 92. Apportionment of 
representatives, 9.S. Indian hostilities, 93, 94. Tariff increased, 94. 

CHAPTER VII. 
OPPOSITION TO Washington's administration. — differences between 

SECRETARIES JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. — WHISKY INSURRECTION. — FUGI- 
TIVE LAW. — CONSTITUTION AMENDED. 

' jposition to the administration ; Cabinet controversy ; Jefferson and Hamilton, 
95-101. Their letters to Washington, 102-104. Whisky insurrection, 105, 

106. Re-election of Washington and Adam?, 106. Charges against Hamilton, 

107. Fugitive slave law, 107, 108. Amendment of the constitution, 108. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION. — RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. — PROCLA- 
MATION OF NEUTRALITY. — GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. — POLICY OF 
GREAT BRITAIN. 

French revolution, 109. Our relations with France, 110. Proclamation of 
neutrality. 111, 112. DiflBculties with Genet, the French minister, 112-118. 
Democratic societies, 116. Affair of Little Democrat, 117. Genet recalled, 
119. Morris recalled from France ; Monroe appointed ; Letters of Hamilton 
and Madison on the proclamation, 119. British policy, 119, 120. 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE THIRD CONGRESS. — PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. — JEFFERSON'S COM- 
MERCIAL REPORT ; HIS RESIGNATION. — MADISON's RESOLUTIONS. — PROSPECT 
OF WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. — JAY's MISSION TO ENGLAND. 

The third congress meets ; president's recommendations, 121, 122. Jefferson's 
commercial report, 122. Resignation, 124. Madison's resolutions, 124-129, 
Naval force against Algiers, 129, 130. DiflBculties with Great Britain, 130-134. 
Jay's mission to England, 132-134. Charges against Hamilton renewed; Neu- 
trality law, 133. Western Indians defeated by Wayne, 133. 

CHAPTER X. 

DECLINE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES. — FUNDING SYSTEM CONSUMMATED. — RESIG- 
NATION OF HAMILTON AND KNOX. — THE JAY TREATY. — TREATIES WITH SPAIN 
AND ALGIERS. — MONROE RECALLED. 

Washington against democratic societies, 135. Hamilton's report on the public 
debt, 136. Hamilton and Knox resign, 136. The Jay treaty, 137. Public 
sentiment respecting it, 139, 140. Randolph resigns ; Bradford dies ; Cabinet 
appointments, 140. Indian treaty, 140. Treaties with Spain and Algiers, 140. 
Presentation of French colors, 141. Debate on the Jay treaty, 142-146. France, 
Spain, and Holland dissatisfied with the treaty, 146, 147. Alliance of Franco 
and Spain, 147. Monroe succeeded by Pinckney, 148. 



CONTENTS. ^rii 

CHAPTER XI. 

WASHINGTON DECLINES ANOTHER REELECTION. — HIS LAST ANNUAL MESSACa. — 
MR. PINCKNET EXPELLED FROM FRANCE. — ELECTION OF ADAMS AND JEFFER- 
SON. 

Washington declines another re-election, 148. His suspicions of Jefferson, 149, 150. 
The Mazzei letter, 160. Forged letters, 151. French minister and the election, 
152. Tri-colored cockade, 153. Washington's last message, 153, 154. French 
government refuse to receive Pinckney, 155. Election of Adams and Jefferson, 
156. Washington retires ; is denounced by the Aurora, 156. 

CHAPTER XII. 

INAUGURATION OF MR. ADAMS. — RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. — SPECIAL SESSION. — 
MEASURES OF DEFENSE. — ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 

Adams' inauguration and address, 157-160. His cabinet, 160. Ministers abroad, 
160. Unlawful decree of France, 160. Defense measures ; Stamp act. 161. 
Envoys to France, 162. Novel diplomacy, 162-165. Acts of non-intercourse 
and defense against France, 165. Navy department established, 166. Wash- 
ington again commander-in-chief, 166. Other army appointments, 166. Opposi- 
tion to the administration, 167. Jefferson's letters to Madison, 167, 168. 
" Black cockade federalist," 168. Mississippi territory, 169. Alien and sedi- 
tion laws ; Virginia and Kentucky resolutions ; Nullification, 172-176. Case 
of Matthew Lyon, 176, 177. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

DIFFICULTIES WITH FRANCE. TREATY NEGOTIATED. — DIVISION OF THE FEDER- 
ALISTS. — PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 

A new mission to France ; Dissensions in the administration, 178-180. Another 
revolution in France, 181. Treaty negotiated, 182,183. Ratified, 184. 
Newspaper press, 184-186. Resistance to tax law in Pennsylvania, 186-187. 
Sixth congress, first session, 187. Indiana territory, 188. Rupture iu the 
cabinet, 188-189. Presidential election, 189-192. Jefferson and Burr, 191, 192. 
New judicial act, 190. Implication and vindication of Bayard and others, 
192-195. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

MR. Jefferson's inauguration. — ^appointments. — naturalization. — pur- 
chase OF LOUISIANA BOUNDARY TREATY WITH ENGLAND. 

Inauguration of Mr. Jefferson, and address, 196-198. His cabinet, 198. 
Appointments and removals, 198-202. Acts passed, 1801-1802 ; Use of the 
port of New Orleans interrupted, 204'. Purchase of Louisiana, 203-209. 
Monroe succeeds Rufus King at London, 208. Spain dissatisfied with the 
purchase of Louisiana, 209. Division of the territory, 209. Attempt to 
introduce slavery into Indiana, 209, 210. Amendment of the constitution, 210. 
Spain refuses to ratify a treaty for indemnity, 210. Louisiana boundary, 210- 
211. Spain consci s to the transfer, 211. Treaty of boundary with Great 
Britain, 211-212. 



Tin CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XV. 

MR. Jefferson's re-election. — relations with France and England.— 

TREATY WITH THE LATTER REJECTED. — AFFAIR OF THE CHESAPEAKE.— 
SLAVE TRADE ABOLISHED. 

Re-election of Jefferson, 212. Gunboat system, 212, 213. Indiana and Orleaiui 
territories, 213. Jefferson's inauguration, 214-216. Relations with Spain, 
England, and France, 216-218. Madison's statement ; Seamen impressed, 
218, 219. Two million bill, 219, 220. Randolph's defection, 219, 220. Non- 
intercourse with St. Domingo, 220. Retaliatory duties ; Act for defense, 220. 
Cumberland Road, 220. Negotiations with Spain, 221. Treaty with England 
rejected, 221, 222. Affair of the Chesapeake, 223-225. Slave trade prohibited, 
225,226. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

THE COMMERCIAL WARFARE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND THE 

UNITED STATES. BRITISH ORDERS IN COUNCIL. FRENCH, BERLIN, AND 

MILAN DECREES. — THE EMBARGO, AC — DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 

British orders in council ; Berlin and Milan decrees of France, 226-228. Embargo, 
&.C., 228. Suppressed documents, 229-231. Effects of embargo, 232. Non- 
intercourse law, 232-233. British negotiation, (Erskine and Jackson,) 233- 
234 Rambouillet decree, 234. Conditional non-intercourse, 234. Conditional 
revocation of French decrees, 235. Non-intercourse with France revoked, 235. 
Diplomatic discussion between the United States and Great Britain, (Monroe 
and Foster,) 235-240. French restrictions still continue, 241, 242. Supposed 
objects of Great Britain and France, 243. Secretary Smith's resignation and 

expose, 243-247. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

TWELFTH CONGRESS. — BRITISH PLOT. — THE WAR QUESTION IN CONGRESS.— 
DECLARATION OF WAR. 

Early meeting of congress, 247. British plot, (John Henry,) 248-249. Measures 
of defense, 249. Embargo, 250. Presidential nominations, 250. War message, 
251. War report, 252. French doctrine of neutral rights, 252, 253. War de- 
claied, 254. Address of minority of congress, 254-258. Bonaparte's decree 
of repeal, 258, 259. Orders in council revoked, 259. Departure of British 
minister, (Foster) ; At Halifax; Armistice proposed and declined, 260,261. 
Number of impressments, 261. War measures, 262. Admission of Louisiana ; 
Missouri territory, 262. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

RK-ELECTION OF MR. MADISON. — CONTROVERSY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND 
CONNECTICUT. RUSSIA OFFERS TO MEDIATE. DUTIES AND TAXES. EMBAR- 
GO. ITS SUDDEN REPEAL. OFFER TO NEGOTIATE. ACCEPTED. CAPITOI. 

BURNED. — HARTFORD CONVENTION. BANK PROJECTS. 

Re-election of Madison, 262. Massachusetts and Connecticut disregard war orders, 

263. Loan authorized, 263. Act to relieve importers, 263. Retaliation act, 

264. Russian mediation, 264-267. Negotiation for peace; Commissioners, 
264-267. Duties and taxes, 264,265. Embargo, 265. New loan, 266. Em- 
bargo and non-intercourse repealed, 266. Restoration of the Bourbons, 267. 
Capitol at Washington burned, 268. Further war measures, 2o9. Hartford 
convention 2''^9-272. State of the finances, 272. National bank proposed, 272. 



CONTENTS. 



IZ 



CHAPTER XIX. 

PXACE WITH GREAT BRITAIN. — GENERAL JACKSON AND MARTIAL LAW AT VXVT 
ORI 3ANS. — PROTECTIVE TARIFF. — BANK. — COMPENSATION, NAVIGATION, NEU- 
TRALITY, AND OTHER ACTS. 

Peace concluded, 274-276. Qen. Jackson and martial law at New Orleans. 277- 
279. Tariff of 1816, 279-281. Bank incorporated, 281. Indiana admitted, 
282,283. Specie payments resumed, 282. Compensation of members of con- 
gress, 282. Congressional caucus, 282. Navigation act, 283. 

CHAPTER XX. 

ELECTION AND INAUGURATION OF MR. MONROE. — CORRESPONDENCE WITH GEN. 
JACKSON. — CABINET APPOINTMENTS. PRESIDENT'S TOUR. 

Election and inauguration of Monroe, 284. Monroe and Jackson correspondence 
285-288. Cabinet appointments, 288. President's tour, 289. 

CHAPTER XXI. 

THE SEMINOLE WAR. — OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE OCCUPATION OF FLORIDA 
BY GEN. JACKSON. — RATIFICATION OF A TREATY WITH SPAIN. — TREATY WITH 
GREAT BRITAIN. — CESSION OF FLORIDA AND THE WESTERN TERRITORY. 

Seminole war, 289, &c. Ambrister and Arbuthnot, 290; Trial and executior 
of, 292,293. St. Marks and Pensacola taken by Jackson, 290-292. Jack- 
son's conduct investigated by congress, 293-295. Jackson's memorial, 296- 
298. Treaties with Spain and Great Britain, 299-302. Florida, &c., ceded ti 
the United States, 301, &c. Ratification delayed by Spain, 302,303. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

INVESTIGATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES BANK. — OPINION OF 
THE SUPREME COURT ON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. — DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT 
COURT. — JUDICIAL DECISION ON BANKRUPT LAWS. — QUESTION OF INTERNAL 
IMPROVEMENTS. 

United States bank investigated, 304. Supreme court decides it constitutional, 
306, &c. Decision on bankrupt and insolvent laws, 308, 309. Internal im- 
provements bill vetoed by Madison, 309. Congressional report, 309-311 
Cumberland road bill vetoed, (Monroe,) 811, 812. 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

THE UISSOCRI COMPROMISE. — ADMISSION OF MAINE AND MISSOURI INTO THB 

UNION. 

Admission of Missouri as a state defeated, 213. Maine and Missouri admitted ; 
Slavery compromise, 313-319. 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

THB FINANCES. — THE TARIFF OF 1824 — SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 
Meetii.^ of the 18th congress, 320. Tariff of 1824, 321, &c. Vote on tariff bill 
in 1820, 321; On tariff of 1824, 322,323. Speech of Mr Clay, 323-331 
Speech of Mr. Webster, 331-340. 



X ccirrENTs. 

CHAPTER XXV. 

ELKC'TION OF MB. ADAMS. — THE ALLEGED COALITION BETWEEN ADAMS ANl' 
CLAY. PROPOSITIONS FOR RETRENOHMENT AND REFORM. 

Congressional caucus, unpopular, 341. Mr. Crawford nominated, 3i2. History 
of caucuses, 342, 343. Mr. Adams elected, 343 ; Inaugurated, 344. His cabi- 
net, 344. Alleged coalition of Adams and Clay, 345, &c. Investigation in 
congress, 346. Propositi ins for retrenchment and reform, 348, &c. 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

THE PANAMA MISSION. 

The Panama mission proposed, 352. Commissioners nominated, 353; Confirmed, 
855. Mission reported against, 354 ; Debate on, in the house, 355-360. The 
congress meets at Panama, 3G0. Adjourned to Tacubaya, 361. 

CHAPTER XXVII. 

CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA, IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 

Removal of the Indians, 361. Treaty with the Creeks in Georgia, 362. Contro- 
versy between Georgia and the general government, 363, &c. Gov. Troup 
and Gen. Gaines, 368, 369. New treaty, 370. Georgia prepares for resistance, 
871. Bill for the preservation and civilization of the Indians, 372-374. 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

RUSSIAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS ON THE PACIFIC COAST. — OCCUPATION OF COLUM- 
BIA RIVER. — PUBLISHING THE LAWS. 

Russian claims on the Pacific, 374. Treaty with Russia, 376. Claims of Great 
Britain, 377. Occupation of Oregon, 377-382. Publishing the laws, 881, 382. 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

WEST INDIA TRADE. — NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 

Trade witTi British colonies, 382, &c. Mr. Gallatin sent to England; Negotiation 
cut ofiF, 384. New treaties with Great Britain, 386, North-eastern boundary, 
886. Navigation of the St. Lawrence, 386-390. 

CHAPTER XXX. 

NOMINATION OF GEN. JACKSON. — MORE OF THE " COALITION." — JACKSON's LET- 
TERS ON THE TARIFF AND INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 

Qen. Jackson nominated by the legislature of Tennessee ; Letter of resignation 
as senator, 391-398. Recommends amendments of constitution, 392. The 
" coalition" charge renewed, 393, &c. Carter Beverley's letter and Jackson's, 
894. Buchanan's, Eaton's and Markley's letters, 396-399. Clay's address, 
899. Adams' declaration, 400. Jackson's letter to the Indiana legislature on 
the tariff and internal improvements, 401-403. 

CHAPTER XXXI. 

THE "woolens BILL." — HARRISBURG CONVENTION. — TARIFF OF 1828. 

Additional duties on wool and woolen goods proposed, 403-405. Debate on the 
bill, 405 411. Tariff meeting in Philadelphia, 412. Harrisburg convention, 
412-414 Tariffof 1828, 414, &c. Debate en, 415-418. Feeling at the south 
respecting, 419 420. 



CONTENTS. XI 

CHAPTER XXXII. 

INTRODUCTICN AND DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND 

REFORM. 

Mr. Chilton's resolutions for retrenchment and reform, 421. Abuses specified, 
422. Administration defended, 424-427. Union of the friends of Jackson. 
Crawford, and Calhoun, 427. Resolutions disposed of, 427, 428. 

CHAPTER XXXIII. 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONEERING. JEFFERSON's OPINIONS OF THE CANDIDATES. 

— ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 

Mr. Jefierson's opinions of Adams and Jackson, 428, &c. Gov. Coles and Gov. 
Gilmer's statements, 429-430. Garret Minor's letter, 431. Mr. Jefferson's 
letters to Giles, 431-435. Adams and Giles controversy, 436-441. 

CHAPTER XXXIV. 

POLITICS OF 1808. — MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. — CHARGE OF AS 
ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 

Mr. Adams' charge against the federalists ; A specification requested, 442. Mr. 
Adams' reply, 443-449. Federalists' appeal, 449-455. Gov. Plumer's testimony, 
455. Implication of Hamilton, 456. Judge Gould's reply to Mr. Adams, 
456-458. 

CHAPTER XXXV. 

ANOTHER ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 

Another disunion project charged, 459. Denial of Hayne, 460. Reply of Mitchell, 
460-462. Hayne's rejoinder, 462. 

* 

CHAPTER XXXVI. 

RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. 

Anti-masonry ; Abduction of William Morgan, 463, 464. Participators in, convicted, 
464. Organization and progress of the anti-masonic party, 465, 466 

CHAPTER XXXVII. 

BATTLE OF NEWT ORLEANS, AND THE SIX MILITIA MEN. FUGITIVE SLAVES AND 

ABOLITION. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. ANTI-TARIFF PROTESTS. INTERNAL 

IMPROVEMENT FUND. PUBLIC LANDS IN INDIANA. 

Picture of the battle of New Orleans proposed, 467. The six Tennessee militiamen, 

467. Attempt to procure the surrender of fugitive slaves from Great Britain, 

468. Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, 468, 469. Election of 
1828, 469, 470. Protests of South Carolina and Georgia against the tariff, 470- 
471. Dickerson's plan to distribute the revenue, 472. Debate on, 473. Indi- 
ana claims public lands, 474. Distribution of land sales proposed, 475. Re- 
trenchment, 476. 

CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. — REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. — MEETING 
OF CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 

Inauguration of Qcn. Jackson, 476, 477. His cabinet, 477. New rule of removal 
and appointment, 478, 479. Extent of removals, 480. Meeting of congress • 
Preside* t's message, 481-484. Power of removal discussed, 484-486. 



Zai CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXXIX. 

rOOl'i RESOLUTIONS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. — GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE, 

Foot's resolutions for a temporary limitation of land sales, 487. Speeches of 
Hayne and Webster, 488-496. Debate continued by Benton, Rowan, Grundy,, 
Woodbury, Smith, and others, 496-600. 

CHAPTER XL. 

UNITED STATES BANK. — MAYSVILLE ROAD BILL, AND OTHERS. — VETOES OF THE 

PRESIDENT. 

M'Duffie's report on the bank of the United States, 500-500. Smith's report, 
506. Maysville and Washington road bills vetoed, 506-608. Hemphill's report 
on vetoes, 508. River and harbor bill passed, 609, M'Duffie on revenue bill 
509, 610. 

CHAPTER XLI. 

GEORGIA AND THE CHEROKEES. — DEBATE ON THE " INDIAN BILL." — OPINION OF 
THE SUPREME COURT. 

Indian policy of President Jackson; Cherokces, 510. Law of Georgia, and Cher- 
okee memorial, 511. Opinion of attorney-general, 512-614. Bills for the re- 
moval of the Indians, 514. Bills debated, 514-524. Bill passed, 524. Treaty 
with the Choctaws, 524. Memorial of the Cherokees against the laws of Geor- 
gia, 525. Case carried to the supreme court, 626. Execution of Tassels, 627. 
Decision of the court, 527. 

CHAPTER XLII. 

WEST INDIA TRADE. — MR. M LANE's ARRANGEMENT. — JOHN RANDOLPH'S MISSION 

TO RUSSIA. 

Mr. McLane'a arrangement respecting the West India trade, 528-530. JohB 
Randolph's mission to Russia, 530, 531. Post office investigation, 531. At- 
tempt to modify the judiciary act, 532, 533. Impeachment and trial of Judge 
Peck, 533, 534. Attempt to revise the tariflF, 534-636, &c. 

CHAPTER XLIII. 

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON IN RELATION TO OC- 
CURRENCES IN THE SEMINOLE WAR. 

Mr. Calhoun's charge against Gen. Jackson, 536. Counter-crimination and re- 
crimination, 537. Repetition of the Florida war controversy, 537. 

CHAPTER XLIV. 

DISSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSON's CABINET. — MR. VAN BUREN's REJECTION AS 
MINISTER TO ENGLAND. — CASE OF THE CHEROKEES. 

Parties in Gen. Jackson's cabinet, 547. Resignation of secretaries and attorney- 
general ; New cabinet, 548. Supposed cause of the cabinet rupture, 549. 
Ingham and Eaton, 549. Conflicting statements of the cabinet officers and Col. 
Johnson, 550-552. Mr. Van Buren is sent as minister to England, 552. Debate 
on the nomination, in executive session, and his rejection, 653-655. Case of 
the Cherokco' 555-559. 



eoNTENTs. laii 

CHAPTER XLV. 

PUBLIC LANDS. — INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. — PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. — TARIFF 
OF 1832. — APPORTIONMENT UNDER THE FIFTH CENSUS. — PRESIDENTIAL ELEC- 
TIONS^ — RETURN OF THE LAND BILL. 

The subject of public lands referred to committee on manufactures, 559. Clay's 
and King's rej^orts, 559, 560. Land bill, 560. Internal improvement and harbor 
bills, 561. State claims bill, 661, 562. Tariff, sundry reports and bills, 562- 
. 563. Apportionment under the fifth census, 563, 564. Presidential campaign ; 
Democratic, national republican, and anti-masonic nominations, 564. Van Bu- 
ren elected, 565. 

CHAPTER XLVI. 

UNITED STATES BANK. — BILL VETOED. — AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 

Recharter of U. S. bank applied for, 566. Dallas and McDuflSe's reports, 566. 
Veto, 567, 568. Charges against the bank, 569. Reports of the committee, 
569,670. Mr. Adams' report, 571-575. 

CHAPTER XLVII. 

SOUTH CAROLINA NULLIFICATION. — JACKSOn's PROCLAMATION. — FORCE BILL.^ 
COMPROMISE TARIFF. — PEACE. — LAND BILL. — CLOSE OF JACKSON's FIRST 
TERM. 

South Carolina prepares to resist the general government, 576, 577. President 
Jackson's proclamation, 577-581. Nullification act of South Carolina passed ; 
Proclamation denounced ; Military preparations, 582. The president autho- 
rized to enforce the collection of duties, 583. Mediation of Virginia, 583-585- 
586. Clay's compromise tariff, 584,585. "Force bill" passed, 685. South 
Carolina boasting, 586,587. Clay's land bill vetoed, 687. New bill, 689. 
Close of presidential term, 590. 

CHAPTER XLVIII. 

THE BANK CONTROVERSV. — REMOVAL OF DEPOSITS. — BANK INVESTIGATION. 

Removal of the deposits from the bank meditated, 591, Inquiry into their secu- 
rity, 592. Appointment of Duane, 592. President Jackson's charges, 692. 
Duane's disobedience and removal, 594. The act disapproved, 595. Contro- 
versy with the directors, 595-600. 

CHAPTER XLIX. 

CONTINUATION OF THE BANK AND DEPOSIT QUESTION. — CLAY's RESOLUTIONS, 
AND THE president's PROTEST. — POST OFFICE INVESTIGATION. 

Effects of the removal of the deposits, 600. Reduction of bank loans, 601. Large 
drafts on the bank, 601. Parties in congress, 602. House debate, 602-605. 
Clay's resolutions, 605-607. President refuses to answer a call, 606. Mr. 
Benton's resolution, 606. President's protest, 607. Poindexter's reply, 608. 
President's explanatory message, 609. Poindexter's resolutions debated, 610. 
Reports on banks, 611, 612. Adams' resolutions, 618. Dispute about pension 
agency, 613, 614. Rejection of directors, 614, 615. Post office abuses, 615, 616. 



XIV CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER L. 

CABINET CHANGF.S.— MISSION TO ENGLAND. — BENTOn's EXPUNGING RESOLU- 
TION. — FRENCH INDEMNITY. POWER OF REMOVAL. BRANCH MINT. 

McLane's resignation, 617. Appointment of cabinet oflScers, 617. Rejection 
of Stevenson, 617,618. His resignation as speaker; Election of Bell, 619. 
Report of bank committee, 619, 620. Calboun's reports — a deposit bill, 620. 
Deposit plan; Origin of sub-treasury, 620. Benton's expunging resolutioDj 
621, 622. French spoliation bill, 623. Calhoun's report on executive patron- 
age, and debate, 624-629. Branch mint, 629, 630. 

CHAPTER LI. 

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. — PROSPECT OF WAR WITH FRANCE. — DEBATE ON THE 
LOST FORTIFICATION BILL. 

Senate report on French spoliations, 630. Adams' proposition, 631. Resentment 
of the French government ; Livingston's return, 632. The three million appro- 
priation, 632-640. France demands an apology, 632. President Jackson asks 
for power of reprisals, 633. Debate on the message, 634, 635. Benton's pro- 
position of defense, 635. Debate on lost fortification bill, 635-640. 

CHAPTER LII. 

THE ANTI-SLAVERT QUESTION. — DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS. — INCENDIARY PUBLI- 
CATIONS. ATHERTON's RESOLUTIONS. 

Effects of anti-slavery operations, 640. Case of Williams ; Rewards for aboli- 
tionists, 641. Opposition meetings at the north, 641, 642. Sentiments of the 
press, 642, 643. Secession and non-intercourse suggested, 643, 644. Violation 
of the mails, 644, 645. Anti-slavery address, 645-648. Action of congress on 
petitions, 648-650. Senate mall prohibition bill, 650. Bill to prohibit the 
mailing of anti-slavery papers, 650-653. Atherton's resolutions, 653, 654. 

CHAPTER LIII. 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS REVENUE. — DEATH OF MR. MADISON. — ADMIS- 
SION OF ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION. — RECOGNITION OF THE 
INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS. — CLAIMS AGAINST MEXICO. 

Mr. Clay's distribution bill, new plan, 654-656. Mr. Madison's death, 656. 
Admission of Arkansas and Michigan as states ; Long debate, 656-661. Inde- 
pendence of Texas recognized, 662-665. Claims against Mexico ; Authority 
for reprisals asked for, 665. 

CHAPTER LIV. 

SPECIE CIRCULAR. MEETING OF CONGRRSS. RESOLUTION TO RESCIND THE CIR- 
CULAR. — VETO. — Benton's expunging resolution. — presidential elec- 
tion. 

The specie circular of 1836, 666, 667. Meeting of congress ; President's mes- 
sage, 667, 668. Ewing's resolution to rescind the circular, and debate, 668- 
672. Bill passed, and vetoed, 672. Mr. Benton's expunging resolution renew- 
ed, 673. Debate, and passage of the resolution, 674-676. Election of Mr. 
Van Buren, 676,677. * 



CONTENTS. r? 

CHAPTER LV 

4fK. VAN BUREn's inauguration. — SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS. — SUB- 
TREASURY. OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES. 

Inaaguratior of Mr. Van Buren; Address, 677. State of the country; Specie 
payments suspended, 678, 679. Congress specially convened, 679. Sub- 
treasury and other bills proposed, 680. Debate on the bill to postpone the 
deposits, 681-684. On the treasury note bill, 684-687. Sub-treasury bill — 
lost, 687, 688. Anti-slavery and Florida war propositions, 688. 

CHAPTER LVI. 

INDEPENDENT TREASURY. — AGAIN DEFEATED. — TALLMADGE's SPEECH. — INCIDEN- 
TAL DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. — SPECIE CIRCULAR RE- 
PEALED. 

Sub-treasury bill— again defeated, 689-690. Speech of Mr. Tallmadge, 690-693. 
Personal debate between Messrs. Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, 693-702 
Virtual repeal of the specie circular, 702. 

CHAPTER LVII. 

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. — SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. ^PROPOSITION 

WITHDRAWN BY TEXAS. 

Mr. Preston's resolutions for annexing Texas, 703. His speech, 704-709. 
Speech of Mr. Adams against annexation, 709-712, Texas withdraws her 
proposition, 712. 

CHAPTER LVIII. 

" PATRIOT WAR." — AFFAIR OF THE CAROLINE. — TRIAL OF m'kENZIE AND VAN 
RENSSELAER. — TRIAL OF m'lEOD. 

Insurrection in Upper Canada, 712. Affair of the Caroline, 713. Facts relating 
to the war, 714. Trials of M'Kcnzie and M'Lcod, 714-717. M'Leod case in 
congress, 717-722. Legislature of New York, 722. 



CHAPTER LIX. 

THE SLAVE SCHOONER AMISTAD. — CAPTIVES LIBERATED. — MEETING OF THE 
TWENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. SEATS OF THE NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CONTEST- 
ED. — FLORIDA WAR. 

Capture of the Amistad. 723. Demand for the surrender of uhe slaves— resisted, 
723. Judicial investigation, 723-726. Interposition of the British government, 
726, 727. Division of the supreme court of the United States, 727. The 26th 
congress— great contest for seats, 728-732. Sub-treasury established, 732. 
Wa with the Seminole Indians, 733. 



XVI CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER LX. 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1840. — CLAIMS ON MEXICO. — CLOSE OF MR. VAN 
BDREN's ADMINISTRATION. 

Presidential nominations. 735. Pecuniary condition of the country, 735, 736. 
Measures to promote the election, 736-737. Jlr. Tyler and his party, 737. 
Harrison and Tyler elected, 738. Claims on Mexico, 738. Close of Mr. Van 
Buren's term, 739. 

CHAPTER LXI. 

INAUGURATION OP GENERAL HARRISON. — HIS DEATH. — INAUGURATION OF MR. 
TYLER. — EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS. — BANK VETOES. — DISSOLUTION OF THB 
CABINET. 

President Harrison inaugurated, 740. Address, 740-744. His cabinet, 744. 
He convenes congress ; His death, 744. Mr. Tyler's inaugural, 745. Special 
session of congress, 746. Sub-treasury repealed ; Bank prepared, 747. Mr. 
Tyler's veto of bank bills, 748. A new bill proposed, passed, and vetoed, 749. 
Resignation of cabinet oflScers, 749. Statements of the retiring officers, 749- 
753. Botts' letter, 753. Webster's, 754. New cabinet appointments ; Whig 
address, 754, 755. Bankrupt, distribution, and loan bills passed, 766, 

CHAPTER LXII. 

PETITION FOR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. — ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR ADAMS. 
— CENSURE OF MR. GIDDINGS. 

Mr. Adams and the dissolution of the union, 756-758. Resolutions of censure 
and expulsion proposed, 758. Debate on the same, 758-766. Mr. Qiddings 
presents a petition for dividing the union, 766. Case of the brig Creole, 766 
768. Mr. Qiddings' resolutions, 768. Censured bv the house, 769, 770. His 
resignatioQ and re-electioQ, 770. 

CHAPTER LXIII. 

THE TARIFF OF 1842. PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. BRITISH COLONIAL TRADE. 

NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION SETTLED. 

Report on the tariff, 770-774. Minority report, 774-778. The revenue bill of 
the secretary of the treasury reported, 778, 779. Bill with a proviso against 
the suspension of the distribution act, 779. Vetoed by Mr, Tyler, 7£0. Do- 
bate on veto, 780-782. The revenue bill passed and vetoed, 782. Report on 
veto, 782, 783. Bill without the distribution proviso passed, 783. A distribu- 
on bill defeated by the president, 784. Petition relati>>g to West India trade, 
784. North-eastera boundary question settled, 784-7 i/o. 



CONTENTS. ZTU 

CHAPTER LXIV. 

ANKKXATION 0¥ TEXAS. — THE PROJECT DEFEATED. — DEATH OF SECRETARIES 
UPSHUR AMD eiLMER. 

Southern views of annexation, 786. Annexation movements, 787. Treaty cor- 
respondence, 787-790. Treaty rejected, 790. Secret debate on the treaty, 
790-793. Mr. Benton's annexation bill, 793, 794. Debate on the same, 794- 
798. Mr. Tyler's message to the house, 798. Explosion on tho Princeton, 
and death of seci'etaries Upshur and Gilmer, 799. 

CHAPTER LXV. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 18*t 

Messrs. Clay and Van Buren's letters on annexation, 799-808. Baltimore con- 
ventions — nomination of Clay and Polk, 809. Mr. Clay's position, 810. Oregon 
and Texas resolution at Baltimore, 810, 811. Confidential circolar of protest- 
ing democrats, 811-813. Election of Mr. Polk, 814. 

CHAPTER LXVI. 

TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF OREGON. — ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. — FLORIDA 
AND IOWA ADMITTED. — UNIFORM TIME OF CHOOSING PRESIDENTUL ELECTORS. 
REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 

Bill to establish a government for Oregon, 815. Senate bills for the annexation 
of Texas, 816, 817. House bill passed, 817, 818. Votes classified, 818. House 
bill in the senate, 818. Mr. Benton's bill, 819. Debate on annexation, 819. 
Mr. Benton's resolutions, with Mr. Walker's amendment, adopted, 820, 821. 
Opinions on annexation, 822-825. Objects of annexation, 825-828. Mr. Ben- 
ton's Boonville speech, 825, 826. Southern sentiment, 827. Nashville conven- 
tion, 827, 828, Efifect of tarifi'on prices, 828-830. Eflects of annexation, 830. 
Florida and Iowa admitted, 831. Act in relation to choosing presidential 
electors, 831. Postage act, 831. 

CHAPTER LXVII. 

INAUGURATION OF MR. POLE. — DEATH OF GEK. JACKSON.— WAR WITH MKXICO. 
TREATY OF PEACE. 

Mr. Polk's inauguration and address, 831, 832. His cabinet, 832. Death of Gen. 
Jackson, 832. DiflSculties with Mexico, 833-835. Army ordered to the Rio 
Grande, 835. War message, 836. Adoption of war measures, 836. 0. Davis' 
speech, 837, 838. Eflfects of the war, 838. Two millions bill and Wilmot pro- 
viso, 839. President's message, 840. Santa Anna's pass and return to Mexico, 
841. Treasury note, and loan bill, 841. Objects of the war ; Calhoun and 
Benton, 842-844. Clayton's disclosure, 844, 845. A mortl question, M6-847. 
Rhett's theory on war power, 847. Treaty of peace, 848. 



XVIU CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER LXVIII. 

THB OREGON QUESTION. 

Negotiation commenced, 8i9. Position of the admiustration, 849-851. Nego- 
tiation abandoned ; Various propositions, 851-853. Mr. Adams' speech, 853- 
855. Debate continued, 854-860. Excitement in England, 8G0. Propositions 
to " give notice," 860-863. Apprehensions of fl ar revived, 860, 861. Debate in 
the senate, 861-863. Mr. Benton on the boundary, 863-865, 

CHAPTER LXIX 

THE TARIFF ACT OF 1846. — THE WAREHOUSE SYSTEM. — ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 

SUB-TREASURY. 

Attack upon the tariff of 1842; President's message, 865-867. Secretary's re- 
port, 867, 868. Mr. Stewart's reply, 80-8-871. Bill imported, 871. Mr. Bri» 
kerhoofs speech, 872. Bill amended and passed, 872, 873. Warehouse act, 
873, Sub-treasury re-established, 874. 

CHAPTER LXX. 

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848. — ELECTION OF GEN. TAYLOR. 

General Taylor and the presidency, 874-876. Nominations of Gen. Cass and Gen. 
Taylor, 876-878. Proceedings in the whig convention, 878, 879. Allison letter, 

879. Utica and Buffalo conventions ; Nomination of Van Buren and Adams, 

880, 881. Gen. Cass' letter to Nicholson, 881, 882. Gen. Taylor's letters ; 
Albany meeting ; His election, 882, 883. 

CHAPTER LXXI. 

BILLS FOR CALIFORNIA AND OTHER TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS. 

Territorial government for Oregon ; Dix and Calhoun, 884-886. Mr. Clayton's 
bill, 886-888. Oregon bill passed, 888. Territorial government bills — again 
unsuccessful, 888-891. Department of the interior established, 891. 

CHAPTER LXXII. 

INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT TAYLOR. CONTEST FOR THB CHOICE OF SPEAKER. 

— COMPROMISE OF 1850. 

Gen. Taylor inaugurated ; His cabinet, 892. Congress meets ; Long contest for 
speaker, 893. Message, 894. Mr. Foote's territorial bill, 894. Mr. Clay's 
resolutions, 895. Opposed by southern senators, 895-899. Webster's speech, 
899-902. Californ'a state constitution received; Debate on admission, 902,903. 
Mr. Bell's resolutions; Committee of thirteen; Their report, 903,904. Defeat 
of the " omnibus," 904. Mr. Benton's speech, 905-909. Death of President 
Taylor, 910. Mr. Fillmore's accession ; His cabinet, 910. Contro\crsy with 
Texas, 910, 911. Passage of compromise bills, 911, 912. 



CONTENTS. XIX 

CHAPTER LXXIII. 

THE COMPROMISE OF I860, CONTINUED. — SPEECHES OF MESSRS. SEWARD AND 

CASS. 

Speech of Mr. Seward on the compromise measures of 1850, 912-930. Speech 
of Mr. Cass, 930-937. Death of Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, and Webster, 937. 

CHAPTER LXXIV. 

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1852. — INAUGURATION OF MR. PIERCE. 

National conventions of 1852, 937. Nomination of Pierce and King, and of Scott 
and Graham, 937, 938. Platforms of the parties, 938, 939. Election of Gen. 
Pierce ; His inauguration, 939-940. 

CHAPTER LXXV. 

THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS OP KANSAS AND NEBRASKA. 

Congress meets, December, 1853 ; Election of speaker, 940. President's mes- 
sage, 940, 941. Re-agitation of the slavery question, 941. Propositions to 
establish a territorial government for Nebraska, 941. Mr. Douglas proposes 
a division of the territory ; His speech, 942-944. Mr. Chase's speech, 944- 
950. Mr. Houston's speech, 950. Messrs. Badger and Cass, 951, 952. Bill passed 
962. 

APPENDIX. 

Declaration of Independence 95P 

Articles of Confederation 959 

Constitution of the United States 966 

Notes 977 

Statistics 996 

ndex 1004 



THE 

AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



«»♦»♦■ 



CHAPTER I. 

THE SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES, AND THEIR FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. 

The establishment of republican institutions in this country consti- 
tutes a new era in the history of civil government. To America belongs 
the honor of having presented to the world the first system of consti- 
tutional government founded upon political equality and the general 
consent of the j)eople. Most governments had been the creatures of 
accident, or or the concurrence of unforeseen events, rather than the 
result of design. Liberty was enjoyed only as it had been wrested from 
the grasp of tyranny, or as it had been reluctantly granted to silence the 
popular clamor, or to prevent rebellion. Chartered governments, called 
republics, had indeed existed ; but they conferred only a partial fran- 
chise and limited civil privileges. The political system of the United 
States is the result of forethought and mature deliberation, and derives 
its authority from the true source of power, the whole people : and its 
crowning excellence — its chief conservative principle — is its recognition 
of the paramount authority of the Divine will. 

Constitutional liberty based upon these principles, is of a date long 
anterior to that of our national or any state constitution formed since 
the establishment of our national independence. It had its origin in the 
cabin of the Mayflower before the pilgrim immigrants had effected their 
landing. The constituent elements of the " compact," then and there 
formed, were early introduced into the governments of the colonies, espe- 
cially those of New England. 

Of the forms of government which prevailed in the colonies, there 
were three : the charter, the royal or provincial, and the proprietary 
governments. 



22 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The charter governments existed only in Ne-w England. These 
charters, or grants of the crown, conferred on the colonists not only a 
right to the soil, but the privileges of natural born subjects. They 
elected their own governors and legislative assemblies, and established 
courts of justice. The legislative power was ample, its only limitation 
was, that the laws enacted should not be contrary to those of England. 

During the attempts of the British Government, in the reign of Charles 
I, to enforce conformity to the established church, a number of people, 
to avoid prosecution under these laws, and to enjoy freedom of conscience 
in matters of religion, removed to Holland. In 1619, these persons 
determined to remove to North America ; and in the following year they 
embarked on a voyage with a design of settlement on the Hudson, within 
the limits of the London, or South Virginia company, and for this pur- 
pose they had obtained a charter from this company. But by accident, 
as some suppose, or, as is generally believed, by the treachery of the 
Dutch, who themselves had contemplated settling on the Hudson, and 
who bribed the pilot to land them north of the Hudson, they were taken 
to the coast of Cape Cod, where they arrived on the 9th of November, 
1620. The story of their having been carried thither against their 
wishes or intention, rests, however, on doubtful authority. They were 
called Piiritans, a name given to those who dissented from the established 
church because they wished for a purer form of disciplin^and worship ; 
some of the ancient Bomish ceremonies being still continued in that 
church. 

Not having contemplated any plantation within the limits of the Ply- 
mouth company, they had not obtained from them any charter. Being 
therefore destitute of any right to the soil, and without any powers of 
government derived from the proper authority, on the 1 1th of November, 
before they landed, they drew up and signed the following compact, or 
constitution : 

" In the name of God, amen. — We, whose names are under-written, 
the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, &c., having 
undertaken, for the glory of God, the advancement of the Christian faith, 
and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in 
the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and 
mutually, iu the presence of God, and of one another, covenant and com- 
bine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering 
and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid ; and by virtue 
hereof do enact, constitute and frame, such just and equal laws, ordi- 
nances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be 
thought most meet and convenient for the good of the colony; unto 
which we promise all due submission and obedience." 



SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES. 23 

Tills was tlie earliest American constitution, and in substance a pure 
democracy. It was signed by 41 persons. The whole company, in- 
cluding women and children, numbered 101. 

Having settled a social contract, they proceeded to examine the coast, 
and finally determined to settle at a place which they called Plymouth, after 
the name of the company owning the soil. They landed on the 23 d of 
December, and commenced the first permanent settlement in New Eng- 
land. For ten years, the colonists held their property in common, when 
they obtained from the company a grant of the land. The government 
of the colony was administered by a governor and seven assistants, all 
chosen by the people annually. Being a pure democracy, the people, 
in general meeting, often decided upon both legislative and executive 
affairs. In 1639, their numbers having become such as to render delib- 
eration in full assembly inconvenient, the representative system was 
adopted. 

In 1628, the Massachusetts colony was settled by a company, (also 
Puritans,) incorporated by royal charter, the land having been previously 
purchased of the Plymouth company. In 1630, the powers of govern- 
ment were transferred from the crown to the colonists, who had power 
to elect annually a governor, a deputy-governor, and eighteen assistants. 
In 1634, the people claimed the right of representation, which, though 
unauthorized by the charter, was generally assented to ; and two or 
three deputies were chosen from each plantation, to represent the people 
in the general court. The governor, or, in his absence, the deputy- 
governor, the assistants, or at least six of them, and the body of freemen, 
constituted a general court, by which the powers of government were to 
be exercised. The claiming by the former, (the assistants,) of a right to 
negative the acts of the latter, caused frequent disputes between them, 
until 1644, when by mutual agreement, the legislature was to consist of 
two separate bodies, having a negative upon each other. 

In New Hampshire the first permanent settlement was made in 1631, 
at and near Portsmouth, although a few huts had been erected a few 
years earlier, by fishermen, along the coast eastward from Merrimack. 
No organized government seems to have been established until several 
years afterward; and in 1641, Massachusetts, having previously asserted 
a right over this part of the territory, declared the inhabitants to be 
within her jurisdiction, leaving them, however, to participate in all their 
rights, and exempting them from all public charges, except such as 
should arise on their own account. After a temporary protection from 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire became an independent colony. 

Connecticut was settled in 1635, by persons from Massachusetts. 
The colonists were for several years governed by magistrates appointed 



24 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

by the legislature of Massachusetts, with the advice of committees from 
the towns, with whom they were associated on important occasions. But, 
not being within the limits of the charter of Massachusetts, they formed, 
in 1639, a government for themselves. The settlements were at this 
time confined to three towns, Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor, con- 
taining a population of about 800. By this constitution, the legislative 
power was vested in the general assembly, consisting of a governor, six 
magistrates, and the representatives of the towns, all of whom were 
elected annually by the great body of freemen. The governor was 
chosen from the magistrates : he presided in the assembly, and had a 
casting vote. 

These colonists, like those of the Plymouth colony, were many years 
without a charter, holding the soil by mere occupancy, except such por- 
tions as they acquired by purchase or conquest of the natives, and being 
governed by themselves. In 1662, a charter was granted by Charles II.) 
which adopted the most essential parts of their free constitution. In 
1698, the general assembly was divided into two branches. The magis- 
trates or assistants, with the governor as president, constituted the upper 
house ; and the representatives the lower house ; and each had a nega- 
tive on the acts of the other. 

The colony of New Haven was settled in 1637, by a small company 
of persons from England. The people of this colony also, having no 
charter, formed themselves into a body politic, and established a form 
of civil and church government. The government was administered by 
a governor and a few magistrates. These and other officers were elected 
by those only who were in church fellowship. In 1643, representatives 
from the towns were associated with the governor and magis'trates in the 
general court, as in Connecticut, with which it became united in the 
charter of 1662. 

Rhode Island was settled at the same time as Connecticut. Roger 
Williams, a minister at Salem, in Massachusetts, for teaching what were 
regarded by his brethren as erroneous religious doctrines, was banished 
from the colonies, and with a few followers, commenced a settlement at 
Providence. In the civil compact, they agreed " to submit themselves in 
active and passive obedience, to all such orders and agreements as should 
be made for the public good of the body, in an orderly way, by major 
consent of the inhabitants." In 1640, a plan of government better 
adapted to their circumstances, was adopted. The Providence and 
Rhode Island plantations were at first two distinct colonies. The set- 
tlement at Rhode Island was the result of a cause similar to that which 
led to the settlement of Providence. In 1638, a number of the most 
prominent advocates and propagators of the Antinomian heresy, which 



SETTLEArKN'T OF T'lV. COLONIES. 2fi' 

arose about that time in Massachusetts, were ordered to leave the colony, 
and having, by the assistance of Mr. Williams, purchased the island of 
the Indians, commenced a settlement, having entered into the following 
compact, signed by eighteen persons: 

" We, whose names are underwritten, do hereby solemnly, in the pre- 
sence of Jehovah, incorporate ourselves into a body politic, and as He 
shall help, will submit our persons, lives, and estates, unto our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, and to all those per- 
fect and absolute laws of his, given in his Holy Word of truth, to be 
judged and guided thereby." 

The ruling power was subsequently vested in a governor, a deputy- 
governor, and five assistants. And in 1641, the government was de- 
clared to be a democracy, and the power to be in the body of freemen, 
orderly assembled, or a major part of them, to make or constitute just 
laws, and to depute from among them such ministers as ^hould see them 
faithfully executed. And none were to be accounted delinquent for doe- 
trine, provided it were not directly repugnant to the established govern- 
ment and laws. 

In 1644, the two plantations were united in a charter obtained by 
Koger Williams, who had been sent to England for that purpose. The 
charter granted to the inhabitants " full power and authority to rule 
themselves, by such a form of civil government, as by voluntary consent 
of all, or the greater part of them, they shall find most suitable to their 
estate and condition ; and to make and ordain such civil laws and consti- 
tutions, and to inflict such punishments upon transgressors, and for the 
execution thereof so to place and displace officers of justice, as they, or 
the greater part of them, should by free consent agree thereto." All 
laws, however, must, as nearly as might be, conform to those of England. 
The government established under this charter was a pure democracy. 
There was a legislative body called a court of commissioners, consisting 
of six persons from each town ; but their acts were subject to repeal by 
the votes of the freemen of each town. All judicial officers, and officers 
to manage town afiairs, were elected by popular suffrage. This charter 
was granted in the time of the contest between the king and parliament, 
and while the latter had the supremacy, and continued until after the 
restoration of the kingdom to Charles II, by whom a new charter was 
granted in 1663. 

In 1643, the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and 
New Haven, formed a league, or confederation, by the name of " The 
United Colonies of New England," for their mutual protection against 
the Indians, and against the Dutch at Manhattan. By the terms of this 
uni on, the internal affairs of each colony were left to its own government. 



26< THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

In war, each was to furnish its proportion of men, according to its popu- 
lation ; and the common affairs of the confederacy were to be conducted 
by a congress composed of two commissioners from each colony. In its 
most essential provisions, it resembled, and probably afterwards sug- 
gested, that more celebrated confederation of the thirteen independent 
states, which was formed for their mutual defense during the war of the 
revolution. 

During the civil wars of England, while the government was in the 
hands of the republican parliament, and afterwards under the protector- 
ate of Cromwell, the most friendly feelings subsisted between the colon- 
ists and the ruling power of the 'parent country. The acts of parlia- 
ment were highly favorable to the colonists. The navigation act, [else- 
where described,] was not enforced against them ; and the goods 
imported from, and those exported to Europe, were exempted from 
duties. And even the charters granted by Charles II, soon after his 
restoration to the throne, secured to the colonists the right of self- 
government. 

The royal, or provincial governments, were those of Virginia, New 
York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, the Carolinas, and Georgia. The 
Carolinas, and the Jerseys, (there being East and West Jersey,) were at 
first under proprietary governments ; but at a later period, the Carolinas 
(1728) and New Jersey (1702) came under royal charters, which con- 
tinued until the Revolution. In the royal governments, the power was 
vested in a governor and council, appointed by the crown, and a repre- 
sentative assembly chosen by the people. These governments were called 
royal, because they derived all their powers directly from the king. 
The governors held their offices at his pleasure, and acted under his in- 
structions. The council, besides constituting one branch of the legis- 
lature, in which they had a negative on the acts of the other, acted also 
in an executive capacity, as advisers of the governor. The governors 
had power to negative the acts of both houses ; and all acts, though 
approved by him, must be submitted to the king and receive his approval, 
before they could have the effect of laws. The judges also, and most of 
the other officers, were appointed by the king, and held their offices at 
his pleasure. 

Virginia was settled in 1607, by a colony of 100 persons sent out by 
the London company. This was the earliest permanent settlement made 
within the country. 

The affairs of the colony were at first managed by a governor and 
council appointed by the company. In 1619, a great change was made 
in the government of the colony. A general assembly, the first that 
was held in America, was called by the governor. Tliis assembly ecu- 



SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES. 27 

sisted of " two burgesses chosen from every town, hundred, and planta- 
tion, by the inhabitants, to decide, conjointly with the governor and 
council, by the greatest majority of voices, in all matters of concern 
relating to the colony." Eleven boroughs were represented in the con- 
vention. The government was now established on the plan of that of 
England, the governor, council, and assembly, corresponding to the 
king, lords, and commons. In 1621, by an ordinance of the company, 
two councils were constituted, one a council of state, appointed by the 
company, to assist the governor ; the other a legislative council, com- 
posed of the council of state, and the burgesses, and called the gen- 
eral assembly. A negative upon the acts of the assembly was reserved 
to the governor ; and no act was to have force until confirmed by the 
company in Europe ; nor were any orders from the company to bind the 
colony, until ratified by the general assembly. 

The displeasure of the king (James I) having been excited by the 
establishment of so popular a form of government, he demanded of 
the company a surrender of their charter. Compliance with this demand 
being refused by the company, a writ of quo warranto was issued, (1624,) 
and judgment rendered against the company. The charter was declared 
forfeit, the company was dissolved, and all its powers revested in the crown. 

The government having been taken into royal hands, the king issued 
a special commission, appointing a governor and twelve councillors to 
direct the afiairs of the colony. James died soon after, and was suc- 
ceeded by Charles I, who was not more friendly to the late popular sys- 
tem of government than his father. He devolved upon the governor and 
council the whole legislative and executive powers of the colony, with 
instructions to conform strictly to all orders they should receive from 
him. They were authorized to levy taxes ; to seize the property of the 
late company, and to apply it to public use ; and to transport colonists 
to England, to be punished for crimes committed in Virginia. In addi- 
tion to this, a monopoly of the tobacco trade was secured, by requiring 
the whole of that article to be shipped to England, and delivered to 
agents of the king. 

Under the pressure of these arbitrary regulations, rendered more 
secure by the cruelty with which the governor (Sir John Harvey) exer- 
cised his powers, the colonists, in 1636, after a peaceable submission for 
several years to his authority, seized the governor, and sent him a pris- 
oner to England, accompanied by two of their number to represent their 
grievances. Displeased with this act of violence, without giving the 
deputies a hearing, the king sent Harvey back to Virginia, reinvested 
with his former powers. 

Soon after this occurrence, Charles, probably apprehending that the 



28 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

complaints of the colonists would be brought bcfoie hjs parliament, 
which, after an intermission of seven years, he was about to reassemble ; 
and that these complaints would be regarded as evidence of his arbitrary 
disposition, and serve to increase the discontent which his despotic rule 
had excited among his subjects at home, suddenly changed his conduct 
towards the colonists. Sir William Berkeley, a gentleman possessing a 
character the opposite of that of Harvey, was appointed to succeed the 
latter as governor, and directed to restore to the people the right of 
representation, by issuing writs for the election of burgesses from the 
plantations, who, with the governor and council, were to constitute the 
general assembly. 

Berkeley, who continued to administer the government until after the 
downfall and execution of Charles, had, by his mild administration, 
rendered both himself and royal family highly popular. The house of 
commons, having become established in power, ^claimed the right to con- 
trol the affairs of the colony, and passed an ordinance in 1650, declaring 
the people of Virginia and other places in a state of rebellion, and pro- 
hibiting all trade with the English settlements in America. In pursuance 
of authority' granted by the act, the council of state sent to Virginia an 
armed force to bring the colonists to obedience. Commissioners also 
were sent, authorized to offer to the inhabitants, as a condition of their 
submission, the liberty to " choose such burgesses as they should think 
fit, for the better regulating and governing of affairs ;" provided nothing 
should be done contrary to the government and laws of the Common- 
wealth of England. The squadron entered the Bay of Chesapeake in 
1651, but Berkeley, unable to make successful resistance to superior 
force, capitulated ; on terms, however, which were favorable to the 
colonists. 

During the supremacy of the parliament and Cromwell, the Virginians 
enjoyed the right of self-government and free trade. The governor, 
councillors, and other officers, were chosen by the burgesses or grand 
assembly. Their submission to the commonwealth of England, however, 
was never cordial, and after a period of nine years, they determined to 
return to their former allegiance. The house of burgesses declared 
that the supreme power should reside in the assembly, and that all 
writs should is^ue in the name of the " grand assembly of Virginia, 
until such a command and commission come out of England, as should 
be by the assembly judged lawful." Berkeley was again appointed gov- 
ernor, and Charles II, even before his restoration to the throne had been 
effected, was proclaimed in Virginia before intelligence of Cromwell's 
death had been received. Berkeley was soon after appointed governor 
by the king, with instructions to summon an assembly, according to 
'T5ai?"e and to declare a general act of indemni*". 



SETTLEMENT OP THE COLONIES. 29 

Pitkin says : " The political state of this colony, from the time of this 
capitulation to the restoration of Charles II, has not, until recently, been 
perfectly understood. The early historians of Virginia have stated that 
during this period, the people of that colony were in entire subjection to 
the oppressive government of Cromwell, and that the acts of parliament, 
in relation to trade, were there rigidly enforced, while they were relaxed 
in favor of the New England colonies. Recent researches,, however, 
into the records of that ancient colony, prove these statements to be in- 
correct." — Vol. 1, p. 74. It was expressly agreed by the articles of 
capitulation, that the colonists were to have " as free trade as the people 
do enjoy to all places and with all nations." It is hardly to be supposed, 
notwithstanding, that the ordinance of 1650, and the celebrated naviga- 
tion act of 1651, were entirely inoperative during the time above men- 
tioned. 

The Virginians soon became dissatisfied with their government. The 
right to a participation in the government was insecure, being dependent 
on the will of the king. Representative assembles were called by the 
governors under royal instructions, which might be withdrawn or altered 
at the pleasure of the crown. The rights of the people were rendered 
more precarious by the reserved right of the crown to negative any act 
of the legislature. This form of government, however, continued, with- 
out material alteration, until the revolution. 

New York was settled in 1614, by the Dutch, under a grant of the 
Dutch government to the West India company, and was held by them 
fifty years. The powers of government, legislative, executive, and judi- 
cial, were vested in a governor and council, who held their offices under 
the authority of the company, and were intrusted with the sole manage- 
ment of the affairs of the colony. Although the Dutch enjoyed the 
possession of this territory, it was claimed by the English ; and in 1664, 
the territory now comprising New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, and a part of (.Connecticut, was granted by Charles II, to his 
brother, the duke of York and Albany. The same year an expedition 
was sent out under the command of Col. Nichols, who demanded and 
received the surrender of the colony in the name of the British crown. 

For nearly twenty years after their surrender to the English, the people 
continued to be denied the right of representation. All power was vested 
in a governor and council, appointed by the king, and acting under his 
instructions. At length, in 1683, yielding to the repeated solicitations 
of the people, the king instructed the governor to call a legislative 
assembly, in which representatives of the freeholders were to be asso- 
ciated with the council. 

CoL Nichols was the first English governor. He and his successors, 



30 THE AJIERICAN STATESMAN. 

with their councils, were appointed by the duke of York, until July, 
1673, when a Dutch fleet entered the harbor of New York, and obtained 
a surrender of the place. The Dutch held it till February, 1674, when 
it was again surrendered to the English by treaty. In the same year, 
Charles II made a new grant to the duke of York, who appointed as 
his deputy-governor sir Edmund Andros, whose tyrannical conduct 
here, and subsequently as governor-general of the New England 
colonies, rendered him odious to the people. 

The proprietary governments wore those of Maryland, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, and at first the Carolinas and the Jerseys. These colonies 
were in the hands of proprietors, or persons to whom the right of the 
soil had been conveyed by the crown, with a general power to establish 
civil governments. Their authority within their own territories was 
nearly the same as that exercised by the crown in tlie royal governments. 
They appointed the governor, and organized and convened the legislature, 
according to their own will ; and they also appointed other officers, or 
authorized the governors to appoint them. They had power to repeal 
or negative the acts of the assemblies ; and the exercise of this power 
caused great discontent among the people. The proprietors, however, 
were subject to the control of the crown, from whom their own powers 
were derived. 

Maryland was settled in 1633. The founding of this colony was con- 
templated by sir George Calvert, a Roman Catholic nobleman, to whom 
a grant of the territory was made by Charles I. Calvert died, however, 
before the settlement was effected ; and the enterprise was assumed by his 
brother Cecil, second lord Baltimore, who appointed his brother, Leonard 
Calvert, governor, under whose command the first company of emigrants 
sailed from England, in November, 1632. The proprietor had authority, 
with the assent of the freemen, or their deputies, to make all laws that 
were not inconsistent with those of England. The freemen, at first, met 
in a body to make laws. In 1639, an act was passed, providing for the 
election of a house of burgesses, who, with other persons called by spe- 
cial writs of the proprietors, and the governor and secretary, constituted 
the general assembly. In 1650, the legislature was divided into two 
branches. Those called by special writs were to form the upper house, 
and those chosen by the hundreds, the lower house : and all bills as- 
sented to by both houses and approved by the governor, were to be 
deemed the laws of the province. 

During the civil wars in England, which gave supremacy to parlia- 
ment and Cromwell, the governor was for a time deprived of his gov- 
ernment. In 1651, commissioners were appointed "for reducing and 
governing the colonies within the bay of Chesapeake." The proprietor, 



SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES. 31 

having submitted to the authority of parliament, was permitted to re- 
tain his station ; but he was to govern in the name of the government of 
England. 

In regard to the interference of parliament with the government of 
the colony, the colonists were divided. The Catholics adhered to the 
proprietors, while others favored the views of the ruling party in Eng- 
land. Contentions soon arose between the parties, which led to a civil 
war, in which the governor and Catholics were defeated; and in 1654, 
the government was assumed by the lord Protector. A new assembly 
was convened, and an act was passed, by which persons who held to 
popery or prelacy were restrained from the free exercise of their reli- 
gion. On the restoration of Charles II, the government was restored 
to the proprietor. In 1689, in the reign of King William, he was again 
deprived of his government, which was permanently restored in 1716. 

The province of Carolina was erected in 1663, and granted to lord 
Clarendon and others as proprietors. This charter, like that of Mary- 
land, gave to the proprietors authority to establish such government and 
enact such laws as they should think proper, but " with the assent of the 
freemen of the colony." The powers of government were vested in a 
governor, chosen by the proprietors out of thirteen persons to be nomi- 
nated by the colony, and an assembly to be composed of the governor, 
council, and representatives of the people, with power to make laws, not 
contrary to those of England, which should remain in force until the 
proprietors should publish their dissent to them. By a change in this 
constitution, the executive power was placed in a governor, to act 
by the advice of a council of twelve, six of them to be chosen by 
himself, and the other six by the assembly, which was composed of the 
governor, the council, and twelve delegates chosen annually by the free- 
holders. Freedom in religion was granted, and all were entitled to equal 
privileges, on taking the oaths of allegiance to the king, and fidelity to 
the governor. 

Still dissatisfied with their system of government, the proprietors pro- 
cured the services of John Locke, the eminent philosopher, in drawing 
up a constitution, which was adopted by the proprietors in 1669. This 
plan was ill adapted to the government of freemen. A kind of nobility 
was created, with the titles of barons, landgraves, and casiques, who con- 
stituted one branch of the legislature. The whole system was extremely 
complicated and inconvenient, and was the cause of constant dissatisfac- 
tion among the people, and of frequent disputes between them and the 
proprietors. In 1693, this constitution was abrogated by the proprietors, 
and the former reestablished. 

In 1719, incited by the arbitrary exercise of power by the proprietors, 



S)i THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the colonists, in a convention at Charleston, renounced the govern- 
ment of the proprietors, elected a governor, and declared him " invested 
with the powers of any of His Majesty's governors in America, till His 
Majesty's pleasure should be further known." The people having made 
their situation known to the crown, the charter of the proprietors was 
declared forfeit ; the government was assumed by the crown ; and a royal 
governor was appointed. In 1 728, the king, in pursuance of an act of 
parliament, purchased of the proprietors their rights in the province ; 
and the country was divided into two separate provinces, which continued 
under royal governments until the American revolution. 

New Jersey, as has been stated, was included in the grant of Charles 
II, to his brother, the duke of York, in 1664. It was conveyed by the 
duke to lord Berkeley and sir George Carteret, and in 1766 it was 
divided between the proprietors or their grantees, into East and West 
Jersey, and a separate government was maintained in each by its pro- 
prietors, until 1702, when the proprietors surrendered the right of gov- 
ernment to the crown, and both colonies were reunited under a royal 
charter. 

The proprietor of Pennsylvania was William Penn, to whom the ter- 
ritory was granted by Charles II, in 1681 ; and three vessels with set- 
tlers arrived soon aiier from England. The next year Penn himself 
arrived, with about 2,000 emigrants, and a form of government, and code 
of laws prepared by himself for his province. The government consisted 
of a governor, a council of seventy-two persons, elected by the freemen, 
and an assembly to be composed, the first year, of the whole body of free- 
men, afterwards of two hundred, and never of more than five hundred. 
The council, in which the governor, having three votes, presided, exer- 
cised the executive power, and originated all bills for laws to be laid 
before the assembly. This system, as a whole, was ill adapted to the 
condition of the colony, and in 1683, was displaced by a new one agreed 
on by the governor and freemen. Penn having purchased of the duke 
of York, the lower counties of Delaware, settled by the Dutch, Swedes, 
and Finns, that territory was included in this government. By this con- 
stitution the council was reduced to eighteen, and the assembly to 
thirty-six. 

In 1701, the government was again changed. The general assembly 
was to consist of a single house, composed of four representatives from 
each county, the governor having a negative upon the assembly. There 
was a council of state appointed by the proprietor, to advise and assist 
the governor, or his deputy, in all public afiairs ; and in his absence, or 
in case of the death or incapacity of his deputy, to exercise the power 
of government. This constitution continued until the revolution. 



CHAPTER II. 

TAXATION OF THE COLONIES, AND OTHER CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION. 
INDEPENDENCE DECLARED. 

A WIDE difference of opinion existed as to the extent of power which 
Great Britain might lawfully exercise over the colonies. The crown 
claimed the right to alter or to revoke their charters. This claim the 
colonists denied. They regarded the charters as compacts or agreements 
between themselves and the king ; and, being such, they could not be 
altered without their consent, nor annulled or revoked without a forfeit- 
ure on their part, which must be determined by a court of competent 
authority. The only limitation to the power of the colonial legislatures 
was, that their laws must not be repugnant to the laws of England. The 
king declared that the laws here meant were the ordinary laws of the 
kingdom. The colonists contended that the laws to which their laws 
must conform, were only the great, fundamental laws which secured to 
every British subject his birth-right privileges, as declared in the magna 
charta and bill of rights. Hence the resistance to the frequent 
attempts by the crown to infringe their chartered rights. 

The most prominent subject of controversy was that of taxation with- 
out representation. It was asserted in England, that parliament had 
the power " to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever," and conse- 
quently to tax them at pleasure. As the powers of the British govern- 
ment over the colonies had not been accurately defined, opinions somewhat 
different were entertained on this subject, even in America. In New 
England, it was generally maintained that the colonial assemblies pos- 
sessed all the powers of legislation which had not been surrendered by 
compact ; that the colonists, being subjects of the British crown, were 
not bound by laws to which their representatives had not assented ; that 
parliament had power to regulate commerce, but not the internal affairs 
of the colonies ; and therefore, that while it could impose duties for the 
regulation of trude, its power did not extend to taxation. In some 
colonies, the right of general legislation seems to have been conceded to 
parliament, in cases of internal as well as external regulation. The right 
of internal taxation, however, was not admitted even in these colonies. 

The Plymouth colony, in 1G36, Maryland in 1650, and Massachusetts 
in 1G61, severally declared, by their legislatures, that no taxes should be 

3 



34 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

imposed but by the consent of the body of freemen, or their representa- 
tives. In 1664, the assembly of Rhode Island, adopting the language 
of magna charta^ declared, that " No aid, tax, tallage, or custom, loan, 
benevolence, gift, excise, duty, or imposition whatever, shall be laid, 
assessed, imposed, levied, or required, of or on any of his Majesty's sub- 
jects, within this colony, or upon their estates, upon any manner of pre- 
tense or color, but by the assent of the general assembly of this 
colony." The legislature of Massachusetts, in 1692, declared, that no 
other authority had the right to impose upon the colony any tax what- 
ever. About the same time, the legislature of New York passed an 
act asserting its own exclusive right to make laws relating not only to 
taxation, but to the general affairs of the colony. In Virginia, in 
1676, it was claimed to be " the right of Virginians, as well as of all 
other Englishmen, not to be taxed but by their own consent, expressed 
by their representatives." The assembly of New Jersey, in 1680, in a 
certain case, declared even duties on goods to be illegal and unconstitu- 
tional, because imposed without their consent. 

The general sentiment on this question, has been stated by the late 
John Adams thus : " The authority of parliament was never generally 
acknowledged in America. More than a century since, Massachusetts 
and Virginia both protested against the act of navigation, and refused 
obedience, for this very reason, because they were not represented in 
parliament, and were therefore not bound ; and afterwards confirmed it 
by their own provincial authority. And from that time to this, the 
general sense of the colonies has been, that the authority of parliament 
was confined to the regulation of trade, and did not extend to taxation 
or internal legislation." 

The colonists had from the beginning acknowledged the authority of 
p^irliament to regulate commerce, and had paid duties laid for that pur- 
pose ; but when they were made to suffer from the restrictive measures 
of the British government, some were disposed to question its right even 
to lay duties. In New Jersey the collection of duties was, in one in- 
stance, resisted, on the ground that they were illegal and unconstitu- 
tional, because imposed without the consent of the people. Resistance, 
however, to the laws of parliament was seldom offered, until systematic 
efforts were made by that body, to exercise the power of internal legisla- 
tion and taxation. 

The system of monopolizing the trade of the colonies by Grea.t 
Britain, was commenced at an early period. The Virginia company, in 
1621, to avoid the heavy duties upon their tobacco imported into 
England, sent it to Holland. An order of the king and cjuucil 
Boon followed, declaring " that no tobacco, or other productions 



TAXATION OP THE COLONIES. 35 

of the colonies, should thenceforth be carried into any foreign port, until 
they were first landed in England, and the customs paid." This order 
not being strictly enforced by the governors, instructions were given, iu 
1637, to the governor of Virginia, to "be very careful that no vessel 
depart thence loaded with these commodities before bond with sufficient 
sureties be taken to his Majesty's use, to bring the same into his Majesty's 
dominions, and to carry a loading from thence." 

Notwithstanding these instructions, the productions of the colonies 
and of other countries, were still carried by Hollanders for English 
merchants. Then came that memorable enactment, called the naviga- 
tion act, by the commons in 1651. By this act it was ordained, 
that no merchandise should be imported into his Majesty's plantations, 
or exported from them, but in vessels built in England or its plantations ; 
and that no sugar, tobacco, ginger, cotton, indigo, or other articles 
enumerated, should be exported from the colonies to any other country 
than such as belonged to the crown of G-reat Britain. This act, which 
was passed while the parliament was in power, was reenacted soon after 
the restoration of Charles II, and with additional restrictions. Not 
satisfied with the monopoly of the colonial export trade, parliament, 
determined to effect a similar limitation of the import trade, enacted in 
16G3, that "no commodity of the growth or manufacture of Europe^ 
shall be imported into any of the king's plantations in Asia, Africa, or 
America, but what shall have been shipj^edin England, Wales, or town of 
Benoick, and in English built shipping, whereof the master and three- 
fourths of the mariners are English, and carried directly thence to the said 
plantations ;" excepting, however, salt from any part of Europe for the 
American fisheries, wines from Madeira and the Azores, and provisions 
from Scotland, for the plantations. The objects of this selfish policy 
are declared iu the preamble to this act to be : " the keeping of his 
Majesty's subjects in the plantations in a firmer dependence /" the 
" increase of English shipping ;" and " the vent of English woolens and 
other manufactures and commodities.'''' 

These acts, however, left the colonists free to export the enumerated 
commodities from one plantation to another, without duty. But even 
this privilege was not long enjoyed. In 1672, duties were imposed upon 
sugars, tobacco, indigo, cotton, wool, &c., transported from one colony 
to another. These acts were, in some of the colonies, declared to be 
violations of their charters ; and in Massachusetts they were wholly dis- 
regarded. They were pronounced by the general court, to be an invasion 
of the rights, liberties, and properties of the subjects of his Majesty in 
the colony, they not being represented in parliament." The displeasure 
of the king and ministry having been excited by this violation of the 



36 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

laws and measures being meditated to enforce them, the general court, 
by a special act, ordered their observance in future. In the Carolinas, 
also, these acts were not generally obeyed. The act levying duties on 
articles carried from one colony to another was pronounced a violation 
of their charters. 

In 1696, a board of commissioners, called "a board of trade and 
plantations," was constituted to take the management of the affairs of 
the colonies. Laws were also passed for the more certain enforcement of 
the acts of trade. One of these laws required the governors, on oath, and 
under a severe penalty, to see the navigation acts executed. Parliament 
also made the authority of the governors in the proprietary governments 
dependent on the approval of the king, in violation of the charters of 
these colonies. 

We have seen, that the restrictive policy of the parent country was to 
secure a " vent of English woolens and other manufactures and commo- 
dities," as well as the " increase of English shipping." Accordingly, 
when the colonists began to manufacture for themselves, they were met 
by an act of parliament, declaring that " no wool, yarn, or woolen man- 
ufactures of the American plantations should be shipped there to be 
transported to any place whatever." The manufactures most injurious 
to the trade and manufactures of the parent country, were those of wool, 
flax, iron, paper, hats and leather. Hats being made in New England, 
and exported to Spain, Portugal, and the West India islands, an act was 
passed in 1732, which prohibited not only their exportation to foreign 
countries but their being carried from one colony to another. And, as 
an additional means of crippling the manufacture of this article, no hat- 
ter was allowed to carry on the business, without having served seven 
years as an apprentice to the trade, or to employ more than two appren- 
tices at one time ; and no black or negro might work at the business at 
all. By an act of parliament, in 1750, iron in pigs and bars might be 
imported from the colonies into England to be manufactured ; but the 
erection or continuance of any slitting or rolling mill, plating forge to 
work with a tilt-hammer, or any furnace for making steel in the colonies, 
was prohibited ; and any such mill or machinery was declared to be a 
common nuisance, which the governors, under a penalty of £500, were 
required to cause to be abated. 

The extraordinary expenses of the war between Great Britain and 
France, which terminated in the peace of 1763, and in the acquisition of 
Canada and the other French possessions in North America, having ren- 
dered it necessary to increase the national revenue, it was determined to 
have recourse to taxation in the colonies ; and also to provide for a more 
rigid execution of the navigation acts, and acts regulating the colonial 



TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 37 

trade. Accordingly, orders were issued, in 1760, to the custom house 
officers in America, to take more effectual measures for enforcino- the 
acts of trade ; and particularly those which imposed duties upon the 
productions of the French and Spanish West India islands. To insure 
the future collection of these duties, all officers in the sea service on the 
American station, Avere converted into revenue officers, and required to 
take custom house oaths ; and the collectors of customs were directed to 
apply, if necessary, to the courts for written authority to break open 
houses and other buildings to search for smuggled and prohibited goods. 
The New England colonies had carried on a lucrative trade with the 
French and Spanish colonies. With the sugar, molasses, &c., there 
obtained, they had been enabled to pay for the British manufactures im- 
ported. Massachusetts being most deeply interested in that trade, these 
measures were extremely obnoxious to the people of that colony. What 
rendered the law more objectionable was, that the penalties and for- 
feitures under it were recoverable in any court of vice-admiralty without 
trial by jury. 

Another measure contemplated by the British ministry about this time, 
was the modification of the colonial governments. As these govern- 
ments, especially the charter governments, were deemed too liberal, it 
was thought necessary to alter them, with a view of rendering the colo- 
nies more dependent on the crown, and of preventing revolts in future. 
The attempt to carry into effect this purpose of " reforming the Ameri- 
can governments," was prevented, probably, by the general excitement 
produced by the resolution of parliament, in 1 764, declaring the inten- 
tion of imposing stamp duties in the colonies ; the further consideration 
of which was postponed to the next session. 

Apprehending the passage of the stamp act, agents from several of 
the provincial assemblies were sent to England, with petitions to the 
king, and memorials to both houses of parliament against the measure ; 
but the petitions and memorials were not received ; it being alleged to 
be contrary to order to receive petitions against money bills. The bill 
was passed by very large majorities in both houses, and on the 22nd of 
March, 1765, received the royal assent. This act provided that obliga- 
tions in writing in daily use, were to be null and void, unless they were 
executed on a paper or parchment stamped with a specific duty. Also 
newspapers, almanacs, and pamphlets were to be made to contribute to 
the British treasury. 

Intelligence of the passage of this act was received with indignation 
and alarm ; meetings of the neople were held ; and the whole country 
was set in a flame. The as^^ea r,ly of Virginia was in session when the 
news arrived. Resolutions introduced by Patrick Henry, were adopted, 



3S THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

in which the taxation of the people by themselves or their chosen repre- 
sentatives, was claimed as their exclusive right. Similar resolutions 
were passed by the legislatures of several other colonies. The house of 
representatives of Massachusetts recommended a congress of deputies 
from all the colonies, to meet at New York on the first Tuesday of 
October, 1765, to consult on the circumstances of the colonies and 
measures of relief Commissioners from all the colonies except New 
Hampshire assembled ; and Timothy Ruggles, of Massachusetts, was 
elected president of the congress. A declaration of rights and griev- 
ances was adopted, asserting among other things, that the colonists " are 
entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his Majesty's natural 
born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain ; that it was the un- 
doubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with 
their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives ; that the 
right of trial by jury is the inherent right of every British subject in 
these colonies ; that the stamp act and other acts extending the juris 
diction of the courts of admiralty beyond its ancient limits, liave a man- 
ifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists ; that 
the restrictions on the trade of the colonies will render them unable to 
purchase the manufactures of Great Britain ; and that it was the right 
and duty of the colonists, as British subjects, to petition the king and 
parliament for the repeal of the stamp act, of the acts extending the ad- 
miralty jurisdiction, and of the other late acts for the restriction of 
American commerce." 

They next prepared an address to the king, and a petition to both 
houses of parliament. These papers, while they breathe a spirit of true 
loyalty, furnish a specimen of dignified, earnest, yet respectful remon- 
strance, that commands the highest admiration. The king is reminded 
of the causes and objects that brought their ancestors to this country ; 
of the encouragements ofi"ered them by his predecessors ; of their toils 
and hardships in converting the deserts of America into flourishing 
countries, by wliich the wealth and power of Great Britain had been 
greatly augmented. They proceed to say : " Our connection with this 
empire we esteem our greatest happiness and security, and humbly con- 
ceive it may now be so established by your royal wisdom, as to endure to 
the latest period of time. This, with the most humble submission to 
your Majesty, we apprehend will be most efi'ectually accomplished, by 
fixing the pillars tliereof on liberty and justice^ and securing the inher- 
ent rights and liberties of your subjects here upon the principles of the 
English constitution." In their petition to the house of commons, they 
claim exemption from taxation, on the ground " that parliament, adher- 
ing to the principles of the constitution, have never hitherto taxed any 



TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 39 

but those wlio were actually therein represented ;" and then show, that it 
would be for the interest of Great Britain, as well as for tliat of the col- 
onies, to repeal the acts complained of. 

The congress recommended to the colonies to send with their petitions 
special agents, who should unite their endeavors to obtain a redress of 
grievances. One of these was Dr. Franklin, from Pennsylvania. The 
petitions were to be presented immediately to the king, and to parliament 
when they should again be convened. 

Meetings of the people were held in every part of the country, to ex- 
press their opposition to the stamp act ; and the determination was de- 
clared, that the act should never be carried into effect. Newspapers 
abounded with denunciations of the act ; and essays from some of the 
ablest pens were distributed in pamphlets throughout the country. The 
merchants of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, entered into agree- 
ments to order no goods from Great Britain ; and associations were 
formed in all parts of the country against the use of British manufac- 
tures, and for the encouragement of domestic fabrics. To avoid the 
necessity of using stamps, proceedings in the courts of justice were sus- 
pended, and the people were advised to settle their disputes by arbitrar 
tion. An association was also formed, styled " the sons of liberty,^'' who 
bound themselves to go to any part of the country, to resist by force any 
attempt to carry the stamp act into operation. So violent was the oppo- 
sition to this measure, that, on the first day of November, when the act 
was to have gone into effect, neither stamps no ofiicers were to be found ! 

In July of this year, (1765,) a change took place in tlie British cabi- 
net. The new administration was not disposed to prosecute the plan for 
taxing the colonics without their consent. In January, 1766, parliament 
assembled, and the papers of the American congress were laid before 
that body. A bill for the repeal of the stanif acl- wag introduced in 
February ; and after an animated and able deDate, in which Mr. Pitt 
and Lord Grenville were the leading speakers ; the former advocating 
the repeal, the latter opposing i^ the bill passed both houses by large 
majorities, and, on the 18th of March, received the assent of the king. 
Parliament, however, lest the act of repeal should be construed into a 
relinquishment of the right of taxation, passed a declaratory resolution, 
asserting the power and right of the king and parliament " to make laws of 
sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever?'' 
This resolution was followed by four others, one of which declared, that 
the tumults and insurrections which had been raised and carried on in seve- 
ral of the colonies, had been encouraged by votes and resolutions passed 
in the assemblies of the said colonies ; and another, that the king should 
be requested to instruct the governors of these colonies " to require the 



40 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

assemblies to make proper recompense to those who have suffered in their 
persons or properties, in consequence of such tumults and insurrections." 

The general joy caused by the repeal of the stamp act, was in some 
measure restrained by the claim of unlimited power over the colonies 
asserted in the first resolution. It was apprehended by some, that the 
exercise of the power of taxation would be repeated on some future 
occasion. Others, however, supposed the declaration to have been made 
simply from motives of national pride ; parliament having deemed it 
derogatory to British honor to concede the principle contended for by 
the colonies ; and that the declaration would never be reduced to prac- 
tice. The hopes of the latter, however, were soon disappointed. In 
1767, an act was passed, imposing duties upon glass, paper, paints, and 
tea imported into the colonies from Great Britain ; the object of which, 
as declared in the preamble, was "to raise a revenue in America." 

The tardy compliance, by some of the colonies, with the demand to 
make compensation to the sufferers in the stamp act riots, and the offen- 
sive manner in which the requisition was complied with ; and the refusal 
of others to furnish certain articles not usually furnished, but now 
t'equired, for \he soldiers quartered in the colonies, excited the displeasure 
of the British government, and were probably among the causes which 
induced the passage of this act. To insure the collection of the duties, 
authority was given the king to appoint commissioners who were to reside 
ip the colonies, and to be intrusted with the execution of the laws relating 
to trade. The duties imposed by this act were deemed taxes as really as 
were the stamp duties ; and the act imposing them was scarcely less odious 
than its predecessor, and mot with similar opposition. Massachusetts, 
being, from her extensive commerce, most deeply affected by restrictions 
upon the trade of the colonies, took the lead in opposition to this measure. 
Her general assembly met in January, 1768. A petition to the king was 
prepared ; and letters were addressed to some of the jirominent members 
of parliament, in which they again claim exemption from taxation without 
representation, as the right of Englishmen, under the British constitu- 
tion. They also set forth the injustice of this and other acts of parlia- 
ment. They say: "The colonies are prohibited from importing commo- 
dities the growth or manufacture of Europe, except from Great Britain, 
with the exception of a few articles;" which they consider an advantage 
to Great Britain of twenty per cent, in the price of her productions, and 
virtually a tax of equal amount to the colonies. They say farther: 
" The same reasoning will hold good to the many enumerated articles of 
their produce which the colonies are restrained, by acts of parliament, 
from sending to foreign ports. By this restraint, the market is glutted, 
and consequently the produce sold is cheaper; which is an advantage to 



TAXATION or THE COLONIES. 4* 

Great Britain, and an equal loss or tax upon the colonics." They also 
addressed a circular letter to the assemblies of the respective colonics. 
The other colonies joined, not only in addressing the king, but in declar- 
ing the duties unconstitutional. 

Alarmed at this movement set on foot by Massachusetts, the king, by his 
secretary of state, addressed a circular letter to the several governors, to 
be by them laid before the assemblies of their respective colonies, pro- 
nouncing the action of Massachusetts an unjustifiable attempt to revive 
those distractions which have operated so fatally to the prejudice of the 
colonies and the mother country," and reqtiesting them not to take part 
with Massachusetts by approving such proceedings. The governor of 
Massachusetts was directed " to rcq^uirc of the house of representatives in 
his majesty's name, to rescind the resolution which gave birth to the cir- 
cular letter of the speaker." The house, by a vote of 92 to 17, refused 
to rescind or to disapprove the proceedings of the preceding assembly, 
and addressed a letter to the British secretary. Lord Hillsborough, in 
justification of their course. A letter was also sent to the governor, 
stating the reasons for refusing to rescind the resolution. The governor, 
on receiving this letter, dissolved the assembly. lie had been previously 
instructed by the king to do so, in case of their refusal to rescind, and 
to transmit their proceedings to the king, that measures might be taken 
to prevent, for the future, " conduct of so extraordinary and unconstitu- 
tional a nature." The " measures " intended were the arresting of persons 
concerned in resisting or preventing the execution of the laws, and the 
transporting of them to England to be tried for treason. 

The assembly of Virginia passed resolutions asserting the exclusive 
right to impose taxes upon the inhabitants of that colony, and the right 
to petition for a redress of grievances, and to obtain a concurrence of 
other colonies in such petitions, and expressing their disapproval of the 
address of parliament to the king requesting him to direct the governor 
of Massachusetts to aid in causindtoersons to be prosecuted in England 
for ofi"enses alleged to have been committed in that colony. The assem- 
bly also agreed on an address to the king, declaring their attachment to 
the crown, and their conviction that the complaints of the colonists were 
not without just cause. The governor, on being informed of these pro- 
ceedings, forthwith dissolved the assembly. Whereupon, the members 
met at a private house, and formed a non-importing association, in which 
the people of the province generally afterwards united. 

In the same month, (May, 1769,) the general court of Massachusetts 
was convened for the first time since its dissolution in July, 1768. The 
state house being surrounded by an armed guard, the house requested 
the governor to order the removal of the troops from the town during 



42 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the session of the assembly, declaring it to be inconsistent with their 
dignity, as well as freedom, to deliberate in the midst of an armed force, 
with cannon pointed at the door of the state house. The governor 
refused to comply with the request, alleging that he had no authority 
over the troops 

The general court had been convened in order to procure a grant of 
money for purposes of government ; but they refused to enter upon the 
business for which they had been called together, confining themselves 
chiefly to the consideration of their grievances. In the hope that, if 
removed from the influences that surrounded them in the metropolis, 
they would attend to their proper legislative duties, the governor 
adjourned them to Cambridge. But they resumed the consideration of 
their rights and grievances, and passed a long series of resolutions, one 
of which related to the quartering of troops among them to enforce the 
laws, and declared, " that the establishment of a standing army in the 
colony, in time of peace, without consent of the general assembly, is an 
invasion of the natural rights of the people, as well as those which they 
claim as free born Englishmen, confirmed by magna charta, the bill of 
rights, as settled by the revolution, and by the charter of the province." 
Another resolution expressed the same sentiment as that of the assembly 
of Virginia, relative to the transportation of Americans to England for 
trial. When, toward the close of the session, they were called upon by 
the governor to provide for paying expenses already incurred for quar 
tering the troops, and for similar expenses in future, they peremptorily 
refused. 

The spirit exhibited in the legislatures of Virginia and Massachusetts, 
prevailed in most of the colonies. Similar sentiments were expressed by 
their assemblies ; and in several of them the Virginia resolutions were 
adopted. Non-importation agreements became general. One object of 
these associations is supposed to have been to secure the aid of the mer- 
chants and manufacturers, whose int»ests would be most afi"ccted by non- 
importation, in endeavoring to procme a repeal of the obnoxious laws. 
The merchants of Boston, in August, 1768, agreed not to import from 
Great Britain, between the first day of January, 1769, the day on which 
the revenue act was to take efi'cct, and the first of January, 1770, any 
articles whatever, except a few of the most necessary ; and of those last 
taxed, to import none until the duties were taken off. In New York, 
Salem, and some other cities and towns, similar agreements were formed; 
but they did not become general through the colonies, until all hope was 
lost that petitions and memorials would effect the desired object. 

In March, 1770, a bill was introduced in parliament, exempting from 
duty all the articles embraced in the act of 1768, except tea. The total 



TAXATION Oi' iilE COLONIES. 43 

repeal of the act miglit have been construed into an abandonment of the 
principle in controversy. To prevent such construction, was probably 
the chief object of retaining the duty on that article. At a meeting of 
the merchants of Boston, it was resolved, that this partial repeal would 
not remove the difficulties that attended their trade; that it was intended 
only to relieve the British manufacturers ; and that they would adhere 
to their non-importation agreement. Similar resolutions were elsewhere 
adopted. The general observance, however, of the non-importation 
agreement, did not long continue. Associations, and individuals of the 
same association, accused each other of violations of the agreement; and 
each made the acts of others a pretext for his own. 

Troops were still kept in Boston, to enforce the acts of trade and 
revenue, and to awe the people into submission. This was the cause of 
frequent quarrels and of some actual collisions. On the 5th of March, 
1770, an affray took place between a part of the military and some of the 
inhabitants, in which the latter were fired upon, and four of them were 
killed. The town was thrown into commotion. The bells were rung, 
and the inhabitants alssembled in arms, and were with difficulty restrained 
from rushing upon the soldiers. The next morning, a large meeting 
assembled in Faneuil Hall, and in the afternoon, at a town meeting 
legally warned, it was resolved, " that nothing could rationally be expected 
to restore the peace of the town, and prevent further blood and carnage, 
but the immediate removal of the troops." A committee was appointed, 
with Samuel Adams as chairman, who proceeded to the council chamber, 
to demand of the lieutenant governor (Hutchinson) their instant removal. 
After some hesitation, and upon the advice of the council, the troops 
were removed to the castle, and peace was restored. Captain Preston 
and eight soldiers were indicted and tried for murder. It appeared 
upon trial, that the soldiers had been provoked by repeated insults and 
assaults of the mob ; and all were acquitted except two, who were con- 
victed of manslaughter only. m 

On the 12th of April, the bill xo take off the duties on glass, paper, 
and paints, was passed ; but although the non-importation associations 
had been generally abandoned, opposition to the importations was still 
maintained. The perseverance of the colonists in their determination 
not to import tea from England had caused the accumulation of a large 
quantity in the warehouses of the East India company, who were impelled 
to apply to parliament for relief. An act was accordingly passed, (1773,) 
allowing the company a drawback of all the duties they had paid in 
England on such of their teas as they should export to America. This 
would enable the company to sell the article cheaper in the colonics than 
in Great Britain ; which, it was hoped, would induce the colonists to 



44 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

purchase it ; who would thus contribute to the relief of the company, 
and to the revenues of Great Britain. 

Large shipments of tea were made to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, 
Charleston, and other places. But the colonists were determined not to 
suffer it to be landed. If it should be landed, it would be sold and the 
duties would be paid ; and a precedent for taxing the colonies would be 
established. In Charleston, the tea was, after much opposition, landed ; 
but the consignees were not permitted to offer it for sale. In Philadel- 
phia and New York, the consignees declined receiving it, and it was re- 
turned in the same vessels to England. At Boston, the consignees were 
requested to resign. They refusing to comply with the request, a large 
meeting assembled in Faneuil Hall, where it was voted, " that the tea 
shall not be landed ; that no duty shall be paid ; and that it shall be sent 
back in the same bottoms." And the captains of the vessels were 
directed to apply for clearances, without an entry of their vessels. 
While the meeting was in session, one of the captains was sent, for the 
last time, to the governor for a clearance. The refusal of the governor 
having been announced, the meeting dissolved ; and the people repaired 
to the wharf, where a number, previously selected for the purpose, and 
dressed in the guise of Mohawk Indians, boarded the vessels, broke open 
three hundred and forty-two chests of tea, and emptied their contents 
into the ocean. This occurred in December, 1773. 

In March following, these proceedings were laid before parliament, in 
a message from the king. Indignant at the conduct of the Americans, 
parliament at once resolved to provide effectually for securing obedience 
to the laws. The colony of Massachusetts, particularly the town of 
Boston, having rendered themselves most conspicuous in the opposition 
to the laws, were made the special objects of resentment. A bill, since 
called the " Boston port bill," was introduced " for discontinuing the 
lading and shipping of goods, wares and merchandises at Boston, or the 
harbor thereof, and for the removal (^the custom house with its depend- 
encies to the town of Salem." The mil passed with little opposition. 
This act, interdicting all intercourse with Boston, was to continue in 
force until the East India company should be fully compensated for the 
loss of their tea, and until the king should have declared himself satisfied 
that peace and good order had been restored in the town. 

An act was next passed, " for the better regulating the government of 
the province of Massachusetts Bay." By this act, the charter was to 
be altered with a view to deprive the people of certain important rights. 
The members of the council were no longer to be chosen by the general 
sLSSembly, but appointed by the king, and dismissed at his pleasure : and 
the magistrates and other officers were to be appointed and removed by 



TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 45 

the governor, without the consent of the council. Also the right of 
selecting jurors by the people of the towns, was taken away, and given 
to the sheriffs, who were appointed by the governor. Nor were the people 
to be allowed to hold meetings in the several towns, except the annual 
meetings for the election of officers, without leave of the governor in 
writing. By this restriction, it was doubtless intended to prevent those 
assemblages in which the people had been accustomed to discuss their re- 
lations to the parent country, and to consult on measures for the main- 
tenance of their rights. 

Another act was passed, providing " for the impartial administration 
of justice in Massachusetts Bay ;" by which, persons indicted for a cap- 
ital offense committed in enforcing the revenue laws, or in suppressing, 
or aiding to suppress riots in that colony, might be sent to any other 
colony or to Great Britain to be tried. This act was to continue in force 
four years. 

A fourth bill was passed for quartering soldiers on the inhabitants of 
the colonies. 

And lastly, " an act for making more effectual provision for the 
government of the province of Quebec." By this act, the limits of that 
province were to be so extended as to include the territory between the 
lakes, the Ohio, ind the Mississippi ; and was intended to restrict the 
limits of other colonies. The most exceptionable feature of this act 
was, the establishment of a legislative council, to be appointed by the 
king, and invested with all the powers of legislation, except that of im- 
posing taxes. 

The refractory spirit of the people, especially those of Massachusetts, 
who were to be punished into submission, was not subdued by any of 
these laws. On receiving intelligence of the Boston port bill, a meeting 
of the people of that town was called, and resolutions were passed, de- 
nouncing the act, and inviting the other colonics to join with them in an 
agreement to stop all imports from, 'and exports to, Great Britain and 
the West Indies, until the act should be repealed. 

The other colonies made common cause with Massachusetts. The 
legislature of Virginia being in session when the news of the Boston 
port bill arrived, appointed the first day of June, the day on which the 
port of Boston was to be closed, as a day of fasting, humiliation and 
prayer. The day was thus observed throughout the colonies, and ser- 
mons were preached adapted to the occasion. The governor of Virginia, 
displeased with this measure, dissolved the assembly. The members, 
however, before they separated, recommended to their committee of cor- 
respondence to communicate with the several committees of the other 
colonies, on the expediency of appointing deputies to meet annually in a 



46 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

general congress, to deliberate on those general measures which the 
united interests of America might from time to time render necessary 
This proposition was readily acceded to by the other colonies. 

The house of representatives of Massachusetts, now assembled at 
Salem, passed resolutions in favor of the proposed congress, and recom- 
mending to the people of that province, to renounce the consumption of 
tea and all other goods imported from the East Indies, and Great Britain, 
until the grievances of tlie colonies should be redressed ; and recom- 
mending also the encouragement of domestic manufactures. The house 
also appointed five delegates to the general convention. On being in- 
formed of the proceedings of the house, the governor sent his secretary 
to dissolve the assembly. 

On the 5th of September, 1774, the convention assembled at Phila- 
delphia. This congress published a declaration of rights, protesting 
against the right of Great Britain to tax the colonies, or to interfere 
with their internal affairs ; with a statement of grievances, declaring the 
late acts of parliament to be violations of the rights of the colonists. 
They also prepared and signed an agreement, in which they, for them- ' 
selves and their constituents, were pledged, not to import or use British 
goods till the acts complained of should be repealed. And if these acts 
should not be repealed by the 10th day of September, 1775, no goods 
were to be exported to Great Britain or her West India colonies, except 
rice to Europe. Addresses to the king and the people of Great Britain 
were also prepared, and an address to the people of the colonies. The 
congress was dissolved on the 26th of October ; bavins; recommended 
that another congress convene on the 10th of May following, if a redress 
of grievances should not render it unnecessary. 

The determination of parliament, which met soon after the dissolution 
of the congress, to persevere in its attempts to enforce its measures in the 
colonies, removed all hope of redress by petition or remonstrance. Pre- 
parations now began to be made for resistance. Gunpowder was manu- 
factured ; the militia was trained; and military stores were collected. 
In April, 1775, a detachment of troops was sent to destroy the military 
stores collected at Concord. At Lexington, the militia were collected 
to oppose the British forces. They were fired upon by the British 
troops, and eight men were killed. Having proceeded to Concord, and 
destroyed a few of the stores, the troops returned, and were pursued by 
the Americans to Boston. 

In May, 1 775, a second congress met from all the colonies. It was 
determined to organize an army ; and Washington was appomted com- 
mander-in-chief of the American forces. Three millions of dollars of 
paper money, in bills of credit, were authorized to be isssued ; for the re- 



TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 47 

demption of whicli eacli colony was to pay its proportion, and the united 
colonies were to pay such part of the quota of any colony, as the colony 
should fail to discharge. A general post-office was established. Con- 
gress also published a declaration of the causes of taking up arms, and 
another address to the king, entreating a change of measures, and an ad- 
dress to the people of Great Britain, requesting their aid, and admon- 
ishing them of the threatening evils of a separation. The petition to the 
king was, as usual, unavailing. This congress, at its second meeting, (a 
recess from August to September having been had,) proceeded in its 
measures for resistance. Rules were adopted for the regulation of the 
navy ; a farther emission of bills was authorized ; and a treasury depart- 
ment was established. 

The colonies being declared by the king to be in a state of rebellion, 
war measures were adopted by the British government. In December, 
parliament passed an act interdicting all trade with the colonies, and 
authorizing the capture and condemnation of all American vessels and their 
cargoes, and all other vessels found trading in any port in the colonies, 
as if they were the vessels of open enemies. The mass of the American 
people having become convinced of the necessity of an entire separation 
from the parent country, congress, on the 10th of June, 1776, appointed 
a committee to prepare a declaration, " that these colonies are, and of 
right ought to be, free and independent states." This committee con- 
sisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger 
Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. The resolution of independence 
was adopted on the 2d day of July; and on the 4th, congress adopted 
the Declaration of Independence. 



CHAPTEE III. 

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDERATION. TREATY WITH FRANCE. — 

NEGOTIATION WITH GREAT BRITAIN. PEACE. CALL FOR A CONVENTION. 

Congress soon perceived tlie necessity of some compact between the 
colonies, in orc'.er to give effect and permanence to the union, and to 
define more accurately the powers of the congress. A plan wag reported 
to that body a few days after the declaration of independence, but was 
not adopted. In April, 1777, the subject was resumed ; and in Novem- 
ber a plan was agreed on by congress. This instrument was called 
" Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the states of 

." This confederacy was to be styled, " The United States of 

America." Each state was to retain its sovereignty, freedom, and inde- 
pendence, and every power and right not expressly delegated to congress. 
The states entered into a " firm league of friendship with each other, for 
their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual 
and general welfare." 

Congress was composed of delegates, not less than two nor more than 
seven, from each state, appointed annually by its legislature, which had 
power to recall any delegate at any time within the year, ahd send 
another in his stead. The delegates were maintained by their respective 
states. In determining questions in congress, each state had one vote ; 
and that vote was determineti by a majority of the delegates. 

The power to declare war and peace, to make requisitions of men and 
money, and to regulate the external affairs of the nation generally, was 
devolved upon congress. Many of the powers of congress, as well as the 
restrictions upon the states, were the same as under the present consti- 
tution. Some of the most essential powers, however, had been reserved 
to the states — powers, the want of which constituted the principal defect 
of the system, as will hereafter be seen. 

Any act of congress, making war, granting letters of marque and 
reprisal, coining money, emitting bills, borrowing or appropriating 
money, and for certain other and similar purposes, was to have the assent 
of nine states. Other questions were to be decided by a majority of the 
states. Congress had authority to appoint a committee, denominated " a 
committee of the states," to consist of one delegate from each state ; 
which committee, or any nine of them, had authority to execute, in the 



TH£. GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDERATION. 49 

recess of congress, such of the powers of that body as, by the consent 
of nine states, congress should think exi^edient to invest them with ; but no 
power was to be delegated to this committee, for which the voice of nine 
states in congress was requisite. Every state was to abide by the deter- 
mination of congress on all questions submitted to them by the confeder- 
ation. The articles of the confederation were to be observed by every 
state, and the union was to be perpetual : and no alteration could be 
made in any of them, unless agreed to by congress, and afterwards con- 
firmed by the legislature of every state. The articles were to be proposed 
to the legislatures of all the states, and if approved by them, they were 
advised to authorize their delegates in congress to ratify the same. 

It was not to be presumed, that any plan of union could have been 
formed, which would fully accord with the views and accommodate the 
varied and even conflicting interests of thirteen states. Some of the 
states adopted the articles without amendment. Others proposed amend- 
ments to be made to them. All, however, except New Jersey, Delaware, 
and Maryland, instructed their delegates to ratify and sign the articles, 
even if the proposed amendments should be rejected by congress. Mary- 
land was the last state that assented to the ratification, which was done 
the first of March, 1781, more than three years after the articles had 
been adopted by congress. 

The lapse of a few years proved some of the objections to the articles 
to have been well founded, as will appear in a succeeding chapter. One 
of these, in particular, was, that the power of regulating commerce with 
foreign nations had not been vested in congress. This was one of the 
numerous objections made by the state of New Jersey. 

Several states objected that no provision had been made for the dis- 
position of the western lands. They desired that congress should have 
j^ower to fix the limits of such states as claimed to the Mississippi, and 
to dispose of the lands beyond these limits for the benefit of the union ; 
and it was not until after New York and Virginia had ceded their 
claims — the former to all lands beyond such line or lines as congress 
should judge expedient ; the latter to all north-west of the Ohio — that 
congress adopted regulations for the disposal of this western territory. 

In May, 1776, congress adopted a resolution, offered by John Adams, 
recommending to the assemblies of the states to establish such 
governments as their circumstances might require. Before the close of 
the next year, most of the states had formed new constitutions. Several 
of the states had already done so when the recommendation was made. 
Under these constitutions, the legislatures consisted of two branches, 
except in Pennsylvania and Georgia. The representatives, as at present, 
were chosen by towns in New England ; in the other states by counties 



50 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The other branch, called in some states, the council, in others the senate, 
answered for the council iu the colonial governments. In New Hamp- 
shire, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, there was no governor, the duties of 
that office being performed by a committee, or council, the president of 
which was president of the state. The governors in most of the states 
were chosen by the legislatures. 

In the winter of 1778, while the British ministry were preparing a 
plan of conciliation to be proposed to the people of tlie United States, a 
treaty of friendship and commerce with France was concluded by the 
American commissioners in that country ; also a treaty of defensive 
alliance, to have effect in case Great Britain should declare war against 
France. On the 13th of March, the ministry were informed by the 
French minister in England, that a treaty of friendship and commerce had 
been agreed on between France and the United States ; and that measures 
would be takeu to protect the commerce of the two countries. Where- 
upon the British minister at Paris was recalled — an act which is some- 
times considered tantamount to a formal declaration of war. 

The desire, however, of Great Britain to discontinue the war with the 
United States, was doubtless quickened by their alliance with so formi- 
dable a power as that of France. Anxious to try the virtue of her plan 
of reconciliation, without delay, copies of the bills containing the con- 
ciliatory propositions, were sent to the United States before they were 
passed. 

One of these bills proposed not to impose any duty or tax in the North 
American colonies, except such as might be necessary for the regulation 
of commerce ; and the duties were to be applied to the use of the colonies. 
The second was to restore the ancient charter of Massachusetts. The 
third authorized the appointment of commissioners to treat concerning 
the grievances in the government of the colonies. Congress, however, 
suspecting it to be the intention of Great Britain merely to lull the 
Americans with hopes of peace, until she could assemble new armies, 
determined to hold no conference or treaty with any commissioners on 
the part of Great Britain, unless she should first withdraw her fleets 
and armies, or acknowledge the independence of the states. The treaties 
with France arrived in May, and were unanimously ratified by congress. 
The British commissioners soon after arrived, but congress, adhering to 
the determination not to receive any proposals, except upon the condi- 
tions mentioned, the attempt at conciliation failed. 

In the summer of 1778, a minister plenipotentiary arrived from France ; 
and soon after Dr. Franklin was sent to represent the United States in 
that country. Early in the next year, Spain offered to mediate between 
France and Great Britain. France accepted the offer of mediation, but 



NEGOTIATION WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 51 

Grreat Britain rejected it; and in June, (1779,) Spain joined France in 
the war. She declined, however, to accede to the treaties between 
France and the United States. Congress, had been informed of the 
proffered mediation by Spain, in February, and appointed a committee 
'to whom the subject was referred, and who reported instructions to the 
American minister, prescribing the terms upon which he was authorized 
to negotiate peace. The choice of a minister for this purpose devolved 
upon John Adams. 

Congress having determined to make proposals to Spain, with the view 
of inducing her to accede to the treaties between France and the United 
States, appointed John Jay as minister to Spain. As it was known that 
Spain was anxious to secure the possession of the extensive territory 
which she claimed in North America, Mr. Jay was instructed to offer 
her a guaranty of the Floridas, (in case she should succeed in her attempt 
to recover them,) provided she should concur with France and the United 
States in continuing the war with Great Britain, and provided that the 
United States should enjoy the free navigation of the Mississippi. Spain 
professed to desire the alliance, but required, as a condition, the exclu- 
sive right to the navigation of the Mississippi, the possession of the Flori- 
das, and all the lands east of the Mississippi and the Alleghany mountains. 
Spain denied the claim of the United States to any lands west of these 
mountains ; and as it was the intention of Spain to conquer the Floridas 
and the western territory, during the war with Great Britain, she wished 
to have all cause of future dispute between Spain and the United States 
relative to these lands removed. Several of the states claimed to the 
Mississippi, both by virtue of their charters, and by the treaty of 1 763. 
This territory having been ceded by France to Great Britain by this 
treaty, the United States, by the revolution, became entitled to the same; 
and therefore they could not assent to the requisitions of Spain. 

Subsequently, however, (1780,) the State of Virginia, alarmed at the 
reverses of the American army at the south, and desirous of securing the 
aid of Spain, requested congress to alter Mr. Jay's instructions. Con- 
gress accordingly authorized Mr. Jay to relinquish the right of navigating 
the Mississippi below the 31st degree of north latitude, a free navigation 
above that degree being acknowledged and guaranteed to the citizens of 
the United States. This proposition also was rejected. 

In 1780, the empress of Russia offered to the British court, to become 
mediatrix between the belligerents in Europe. At the request of Great 
Britain the emperor of Germany was associated in the mediation. In 
June, 1781, congress appointed Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, Mr. Laurens, and 
Mr. Jefferson, to join Mr. Adams, as representatives of the United States 
in the congress which was to meet in Vienna. Great Britain, regarding 



52 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the United States as her colonies, refused to admit them as parties 
to the negotiation, as this would be a virtual recognition of their 
independence. The American ambassadors refusing to appear in any 
other character than that of ministers of an independent nation, the 
mediation was ended. 

In the summer of the next year, (1782,) parliament having passed an 
act authorizing the king to negotiate a peace, the commissioners of the 
different countries concerned, met for this purpose at Paris. When the 
negotiation commenced, Dr. Franklin and Mr. Jay only were present. 
After the negotiation had proceeded to an advanced stage, Mr. Adams 
arrived from Holland, having concluded a treaty with that government. 
Mr. Laurens arrived from England two days before the treaty was signed. 
Mr. Jefferson, owing to the illness of his wife, remained at home. The 
sagacity, the firmness, and the diplomatic skill evinced by the American 
commissioners who participated in the negotiation, have been seldom 
surpassed. The result was favorable to the United States. All that 
could reasonably be demanded, and more than there was ground to hope 
for, was secured by the treaty. The United States acquired a guaranty 
to the western lands back to the Mississippi, and north of the 31st degree 
of north latitude, which was made the northern line of Florida on that 
river. They were also to retain the right to the use of the fisheries on 
the banks of Newfoundland, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in all 
other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries had 
been accustomed to fish. The British were to withdraw their armies, 
garrisons, and fleets, from the United States, without unnecessary delay. 
The navigation of the Mississippi, from its head to the ocean, was to be 
free to both parties. Creditors on both sides were to be permitted to 
recover their debts in sterling money. 

The treaty was signed by the parties on the 30th of November, and 
was to take effect when peace should have been concluded between Great 
Britain and France. Treaties between these countries and Spain were 
signed on the 20th of January, 1783. On the 11th of April, congress 
proclaimed a cessation of hostilities, and, on the 15th, ratified the treaty. 

The achievement of the independence of the United States, was not 
immediately followed by the advantages that had been anticipated. Tt 
soon became manifest that something more was essential to individual and 
national prosperity. The system of government which had been adopted 
during the war, was found to be ill adapted to a state of peace. The princi- 
pal defect of the confederation consisted in its weakness. It intrusted to 
congress the right to declare war ; but it did not confer upon that body 
the power to raise the means of prosecuting a war. It was capable of 
contracting debts, and of fledging the public faith for their payment : 



FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENTS. 53 

but it had not the means of discharging its obligations. Congress had 
no power to lay taxes and collect revenue for the public service. It 
could only ascertain the sums of money necessary to be raised, and appor- 
tion to each state its quota or proportion. The power to lay and collect 
the taxes was reserved to the states. 

Hence it appears that the confederation had little more than advisory 
powers ; and that the operations of the government depended upon the 
good will of thirteen distinct and independent sovereignties. As a 
natural consequence, delays in collecting taxes were not unfrequent. 
Even during the war, under the pressure of a common danger, the requi- 
sitions of congress upon the states for men and money to carry on the 
war, were often either tardily obeyed, or entirely disregarded ; and, but 
for the loans which were fortunately obtained by congress from France 
and Holland, it is doubtful whether the war could have been successfully 
prosecuted. After the return of peace, congress was unable to obtain 
from the states money sufficient to pay even the interest of the public 
debt ; and the affairs of the country were in a state of extreme embar- 
rassment. The federal treasury was empty ; the faith of the nation 
broken ; the public credit sunk, or rapidly sinking, and the public 
burthens increasing. 

The congress of 1783, deeply solicitous for the honor and interests of 
the nation, agreed upon a measure, the object of which was " to restore 
and support public credit," by obtaining from the states " substantive 
funds for funding the whole debt of the United States." These funds 
were to be raised in part by duties on goods imported, and in part by 
internal taxation. To the amount necessary for this purpose, each state 
was to contribute in proportion to its population. 

This measure was recommended to the several states, and the recom- 
mendation was accompanied by an address prepared by a committee, con- 
sisting of Mr. Madison, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Ellsworth, urging its 
adoption by considerations of justice, good faith, and the national honor. 
Gen. Washington also, in a letter addressed to the governors of the sev- 
eral states on the condition of public affairs, took occasion to add the 
weight of his influence to that of congress, in favor of the plan. Although 
a favorable impression was made by this appeal from one who shared so 
largely the public confidence and esteem, the recommendation did not 
receive the assent of all the states. 

Congress, however, continued to urge the measure upon the states, 
until 1786, when the plan was materially modified. That part of it 
which applied for the internal taxes having met with the greatest opposi- 
tion, congress, deeming a partial compliance with the original recom- 
mendation h'ghly desirable at such a crisis, requested authority ''to carry 



54 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

into effect that part only which related to import duties." With this 
request, the states, except New York, promptly complied. This state 
also had passed an act on the subject, but denied to the federal govern- 
ment the power to collect the duties. It reserved to itself not only this 
right, but the right of paying the duties in its own bills of credit which 
it had emitted, and which were liable to depreciation. The governor, 
George Clinton, was requested to call a special meeting of the legislature 
to reconsider the subject. The governor replied, that he had power to 
convene the legislature only on extraordinary occasions ; and as this sub- 
ject had already been before them, the occasion was not one that would 
authorize the calling of a special session : consequently the plan was 
defeated. 

Another material defect of the confederation, was the want of power 
to regulate foreign and domestic commerce. Indispensable to the accom- 
plishment of this object, is the power to establish a uniform system of 
duties. Each state having reserved the right to regulate its own trade, 
imposed upon foreign productions, as well as upon those from its sister 
states, such duties as its own exclusive interests seemed to dictate. 
Hence, a rate of duties which was favorable to the citizens of one state, 
was deemed by those of other states highly prejudicial to them. The 
jealousies, rivalries, and mutual resentments to which this system gave 
rise, caused apprehensions of serious collision between some of the states. 

Foreign nations, availing themselves of the advantages to be derived 
from the discordant legislation of the states, passed such laws as they 
judged most likely to destroy our commerce and to extend their own. The 
rigorous policy of Great Britain operated more unfavorably than that of 
any other nation. The trade with the British West India colonies was 
prohibited ; and, by enforcing her navigation acts, which secured special 
privileges to British shipping, our navigation was almost annihilated. 
Foreign goods and vessels were freely admitted into the states, while 
ours were heavily burthened with duties in foreign ports. American 
tradn being thus subject to the control of foreign legislation, the 
prices of imported goods were enhanced, and those of our exports were 
reduced at the will of foreigners ; and the little money still in the hands 
of our citizens was rapidl}' passing into the pockets of British merchants 
and manufacturers. 

To counteract the effects of this system of Great Britain upon our 
trade, it was deemed necessary to oppose her commerce with similar 
restrictions. It was believed that restraints upon her trade would induce 
her to relax the rigor of her policy. But the absence of all power in 
the federal government to regulate commerce, and the difficulty of pre- 
vailing upon thirteen independent rival states to concur in any effective 



INFRACTIONS OF THE TREATY OF PEACE. 55 

measure of tliis kind, rendered the object hopeless. Congress recom- 
mended to the states, (1784,) to authorize the general government, for 
the term of fifteen years, to prohibit the importation or exportation of 
goods, in vessels belonging to, or navigated by, the subjects of any power 
with whom the United States had not formed commercial treaties ; and 
to prohibit the subjects of any foreign nation, unless authorized by 
treaty, from importing into the United States any goods not the produce 
or manufacture of the nation whose subjects they were. But the requi- 
site power could not be obtained. 

Endeavors were also made to obtain relief by forming commercial 
treaties with foreign powers ; and commissioners were appointed for that 
purpose. Principles upon which treaties were to be formed, drawn up 
by Mr. Jefferson, were adopted ; and John Adams, Dr. Franklin, and 
Mr. Jefferson, (the latter in the place of Mr. Jay, who was about to 
return to the United States,) were authorized to negotiate treaties con- 
foimable to those principles. With none of the principal powers of 
Europe, however, was any such treaty effected. In February, 1785, 
John Adams, then in Europe, was appointed minister plenipotentiary to 
Great Britain, to settle our commercial relations with that country upon 
terms more advantageous to the United States, as well as to adjust cer- 
tain other difficulties that had arisen between the two countries. But 
the mission in respect to both objects was unsuccessful. Great Britain 
having already every advantage she could desire, and aware that the 
United States, under the confederation, could neither form a treaty that 
would be binding upon individual states, nor countervail her restrictive 
policy, declined entering into a treaty by which she would be sure to 
yield something without an equivalent. 

The difficulties to which allusion has just been made, were the non- 
fulfillment and alleged infractions of the treaty of peace. The United 
States complained that the western military posts were still occupied by 
the British, contrary to an express provision of the treaty ; and that the 
retiring British army had carried away slaves belonging to the United 
States. Great Britain, on the other hand, alleged that some of the states 
had interposed obstacles to the collection of British debts, in violation 
of a treaty stipulation; and that certain other articles of the treaty 
had not been observed. Congress, to remove all just ground of com- 
plaint on the part of Great Britain, recommended to the states the repeal 
of all laws repugnant to the treaty of peace, which was accordingly 
done by all the states in which such laws existed. Mr. Adams continued 
in England until October, 1787, when, the British court still declining 
to enter into a commercial treaty, or even to appoint a minister to the 
United States, he was, at his own request, recalled. 



56 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Soon after the appointment of Mr. Adams, in 1785, Dr. Franklin, 
minister to France, after an absence of nine years, having obtained leave 
to return home, Mr. Jefferson was appointed in his place. In March, 
1784, Mr. Jay, in anticipation of his return from Europe, was appointed 
secretary of foreign affairs, the office having been vacated by the resigna- 
tion of Mr. Livingston. 

About this time a dispute arose with Spain concerning boundaries and 
the navigation of the Mississippi. The Floridas having been ceded to 
Spain by Great Britain, the former claimed a more northern boundary 
to her territory, and the right to exclude Americans from the navigation 
of the Mississippi. In the summer of 1785, a negotiation was com- 
menced between Mr. Jay, secretary of foreign affairs, and the Spanish 
minister, Don Diego Gardoqui, recently arrived. Without having reached 
a conclusion before the formation of the constitution, the negotiation was 
suspended, to be renewed under the new goverimient. 

The condition of the country had become almost desperate, and was 
evidently approaching, if it had not already reached, a crisis. The im- 
mense debt contracted by congress and the states individually, during 
the war, was pressing heavily upon the people ; and their embarrassment 
was greatly increased by private indebtedness. Relief was attempted in 
some states by the issue of paper money ; in others, personal property, 
at an apprized value, was made a tender in payment of debts. 

Driven to desperation by customs, taxes, and excises in the state of 
Massachusetts, to meet the public engagements, and by prosecutions at 
law for private debts, a large number of the people in some parts of that 
state rose in opposition to the laws. In several counties, proceedings in 
the courts of justice were obstructed ; and fears were entertained that 
the government would be overthrown. So formidable was the insurrec- 
tion, that the federal government was applied to for aid in suppressing 
it. But by the vigorous measures of the state authorities, the rebellion 
was quelled without the aid of the general government. The insurgents 
numbered about two thousand. Their chief leader was Daniel Shays. 
Hence this occurrence is usually designated, " Shays' rebellion," or 
"Shays' insurrection." Fourteen of the insurgents were convicted of 
treason, and sentenced to death ; and a large number were convicted of 
sedition. But to such extent did they share the sympathies of the peo- 
ple^ as to render their execution unsafe. Moderate penalties only were 
imposed. 

The pecuniary distress of the country was greatly aggravated by 
large importations of foreign goods, under circumstances which deprived 
the people of the means of paying for them, and which it was impossible 
to avoid. The market for agricultural products which the armies of the 



CALL FOR A CONVENTION. 57 

several belligerant nations had furnished during the war, no longer exist- 
ed. Grreat Britain had not only subjected our products to ruinous duties 
in her ports, but prohibited our trade with her West India colonies^ 
which had furnished the principal moans of paying for British goods. 
The non-importation and non-consumption agreements, and the war, had 
created and encouraged domestic manufactures, which were now supplanted 
by foreign fabrics, admitted almost duty free. Tlie imports from Great 
Britain, in 1784 and 1785, amounted in value to thirty millions of dollars, 
while the exports from the United States to that country were only nine 
millions ; and there was no power in the government to restrain this ex- 
cessive importation, or to countervail the restrictions upon our commerce. 

The impotence of the government began to appear soon after the 
articles of confederation had been adopted ; and a convention to revise 
and amend them was recommended by several of the state legislatures. 
But this recommendation was not generally responded to. One of the 
causes which prevented an earlier revision of the articles, was state 
jealousy; or, as expressed by Washington, "the disinclination of the 
individual states to yield competent powers to congress for the federal 
governments, and their unreasonable jealousy of that body and of one 
another." And as no alteration could be made without the assent of all 
the states, there was little encouragement to any efforts for a convention. 

No relief being expected from an amendment of the confederation, 
the legislatures of Maryland and Virginia, in 1785, appointed commis- 
sioners to form a compact respecting the navigation of the rivers Potomac 
and Roanoke, and part of the Chesapeake bay. The commissioners met 
at Alexandria, in March ; but for the want of adequate power to effect 
any important object, they agreed to recommend to their respective 
governments the appointment of new commissioners to make arrange- 
ments, subject to the assent of congress, for maintaining a naval force in 
the Chesapeake, and to fix a tariff of duties on imports which should be 
enforced by the laws of both states. The legislature of Virginia, when 
acting upon these propositions, passed a resolution requesting all the 
states to send deputies to the meeting, to cooperate on the subject of 
duties on imports. And a few days after, viz. : on the 21st of January 
1786, another resolution was adopted, proposing a convention of commis- 
sioners from all the states, to take into consideration the state of trade, 
and the expediency of a uniform system of commercial regulations for 
their common interest and permanent harmony. The commissioners 
met at Annapolis, in September, the place and time proposed. Only 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, were 
represented. Delegates were appointed by New Hampshire, Mas- 
sachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, but they did not attend. 
Finding their powers too limited, and the number of states renresented 



58 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

too small to effect the objects contemplated, the convention framed a re- 
port to be made to their respective states, and also to be laid before 
congress, advising the calling of a general convention of deputies from 
all the states, to meet in Philadelphia, on the second Monday in May, 
1787, for a more extensive revision of the articles of confederation. 

Virginia was the first state that appointed delegates to the proposed con- 
vention, and was followed by several others before the report of the Annap- 
olis convention was disposed of by congress. A resolution was passed by 
that body in February, 1787, concurring in the recommendation for a con- 
vention. Delegates were appointed by all tlie states escept Rhode Island. 

It has been already stated, that the states of New York and Virginia 
had made cessions of their western lauds to the general government. In 
1783, congress rccjuested that those states which had not alreadv done 
so, should cede portions of their territory, as a fund to aid in pajancnt 
of the public debt. Connecticut, in 1784, ceded her claim to all lands 
lying one hundred and twenty miles west of the western boundary of 
Pennsylvania — the portion reserved, being that which is known as the 
Connecticut or "Western Reserve." Massachusetts ceded in 1785. 
Having by these cessions come into possession of all the lands north- 
west of the Ohio, congress, in July, 1787, while the constitutional con- 
vention was in session, passed an ordinance establishing a form of 
government for the inhabitants of the territory. 

As early as 1784, Mr. Jefferson, then a member of congress, submit- 
ted a plan of government for all the western territory, from the southern 
to the northern boundary of the United States, all of which was ex- 
pected to be ceded by the states claiming the same. By this plan, 
seventeen states were to be formed from this territory. One of its pro- 
visions was, " that, after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery 
nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, other than in the 
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." 
The report, embraced in a series of resolutions, was adopted, escept the 
proviso ; which, not having seven states in its favor, was struck out. The 
four New England states, with New York and Pennsylvania, voted for 
it ; Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina against it. North Carolina 
was divided ; New Jersey had only one delegate present, and therefore 
had no vote ; and Delaware and Georgia were absent. This rejected 
provision was again proposed, the next year, by Mr. Rufus King, (then 
of Massachusetts,) with the additional provision, " that this regulation 
shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of 
the constitutions between the thirteen original states, and each of the 
states described in the resolve." The proposition again failed. 

The oriinancc of 1787, embracing in part the plan submitted by Mr. 
Jefferson, in 1784, was reported by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts. 



MR. Jefferson's anti-slavkry proviso. 59 

The legislative, executive, and judicial powers were vested in a governor 
and three judges, who, with a secretary, were to be appointed by congress ; 
the governor for three years, the judges during good behavior. The 
laws of the territory were to be such laws of the original states, as the 
governor and judges should think proper to adopt. These laws were to 
be in force until disapproved by congress. When the territory should 
contain five thousand free male inhabitants of full age, there was to be a 
legislature, to consist of two branches ; a house of representatives, the 
members to be chosen from the several counties or townships, for the 
term of two years, and a legislative council of five persons who were to 
hold their offices for five years, and to be appointed by congress out of 
ten persons previously nominated by the house of representatives of the 
territory. All laws were required to be consistent with the ordinance, 
and to have the assent of the governor. The ordinance concludes with 
six articles of compact between the original states and the people of the 
territory, to be unalterable except by common consent. The first secures 
entire religious freedom; the second, trial by jury, the writ of habeas 
corpus, and the other fundamental rights usually inserted in bills of rights ; 
the third provided for the encouragement and support of schools, and en- 
joined good faith towards the Indians ; the fourth placed the new states to 
be formed out of the territoryupon an equal footing with the old ones,both 
in respect to their privileges and their burdens, and reserved to the Uni- 
ted States the right to dispose of the soil ; the fifth authorized the future 
division of the territory into not less than three nor more than five states, 
each state to be admitted into the union, when it should contain sixty 
thousand free inhabitants ; the sixth was the anti-slavery proviso intro- 
duced by Mr. Jefferson in 1784, so modified, however, as to take effect 
immediately. 

This ordinance, which left the territory south of the Ohio, (then not 
yet ceded,) subject to future regulation, received the unanimous vote of 
the eight states present : Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Dela- 
ware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. One 
member only (Mr. Yates, of New York) voted in the negative ; that 
state being determined in the affirmative by the votes of his two col- 
leagues. This unanimous support of this measure by the southern 
states present, is variously accounted for. Mr. Benton, (View, vol. 1 , p. 
135,) says : " The fact is, that the south only delayed its vote for the anti- 
slavery clause in the ordinance for want of the provision in favor of re- 
covering fugitives from service." If so, his information is derived from 
some other source than the journals of congress. In the absence of 
positive information, the more probable reason is, that Mr. Jefferson's 
proposition embraced the territory south of the Ohio, from which, it is 
presumed, the south did not wish slavery to be excluded. 



CHAPTEB IV. 

■ PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION IN FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 

The day appointed for the assembling of the convention to revise the 
articles of confederation, was the 14th of May, 1787. Delegations 
from a majority of the states did not attend until the 25th ; on which 
day the business of the convention commenced. The delegates from 
New Hampshire did not arrive until the 23d of July. Rhode Island 
did not appoint delegates. 

A political body combining greater talents, wisdom, and patriotism, 
or whose labors have produced results more beneficial to the cause of 
civil and religious liberty, has probably never assembled. The two most 
distinguished members were Washington and Franklin ; to whom the 
eyes of the convention were directed for a presiding officer. Washington, 
having been nominated by Lewis Morris, of Pennsylvania, was elected 
president of the convention. William Jackson was appointed secretary. 

The rules of proceeding adopted by the convention, were chiefly the 
same as those of congress. A quorum was to consist of the deputies of 
at least seven states ; and all questions were to be decided by the greater 
number of those which were fully represented — at least two delegates 
being necessary to constitute a full representation. Another rule was 
the injunction of secrecy upon all their proceedings. 

The first important question determined by the convention was, 
whether the confederation should be amended, or a new government 
formed. The delegates of some states had been instructed only to amend. 
And the resolution of congress sanctioning the call for a convention, 
recommended it " for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles 
of confederation." A majority, however, considering the plan of con- 
federation radically defective, resolved to form " a national government, 
consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive." The ob- 
jections to the new system on the ground of previous instructions, was 
deemed of little weight, as any plan that might be agreed on, would 
necessarily be submitted to the people of the states for ratification. 

In conformity with this decision, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, on 
the 29th of May, offered fifteen resolutions, containing the outlines of a 
plan of government for the consideration of the convention. These 



FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 61 

resolutions proposed — That the voice of each state in the national legis- 
lature, should be in proportion to its taxes, or to its free population ; 
that the legislature should consist of two branches, the members of the 
first to be elected by the people of the states, those of the second to be 
chosen by the members of the first, out of a proper number of persons 
nominated by the state legislatures ; and the national legislature to be 
vested with all the powers of congress under the confederation, with the 
additional power to legislate in all cases to which the separate states 
were incompetent ; to negative all state laws which should, in the opinion 
of the national legislature, be repugnant to the articles of union, or to 
any treaty subsisting under them ; to call out the force of the union 
against any state refusing to fulfill its duty : 

That there should be a national executive, to be chosen by the national 
legislature, and to be ineligible a second time. The executive, with a 
convenient number of the national judiciary, was to constitute a council 
of revision, with a qualified negative upon all laws, state and national : 

A national judiciary, the judges to hold their offices during good 
behavior. 

In discussing this plan, called the " Virginia plan," the lines of party 
were distinctly drawn. We have already had occasion to allude to the 
jealousy, on the part of states, of the power of the general government, 
A majority of the peculiar friends of state rights in the convention, were 
from the small states. These states, apprehending danger from the 
overwhelming power of a strong national government, as well as from the 
combined power of the large states represented in proportion to their 
wealth and population, were unwilling to be deprived of their equal 
vote in Congress. Not less strenuously did the friends of the national 
plan insist on a proportional representation. This opposition of senti- 
ment, which divided the convention into parties, did not terminate with 
the proceedings of that body, but has at times marked the politics of the 
nation, down to the present day. It is worthy of remark, however, that 
the most jealous regard for state rights now prevails in states in which 
the plan of a national government then found its ablest and most zealous 
advocates. 

The plan suggested by Mr. Randolph's resolutions, was the subject 
of deliberation for about two weeks, when, having been in several respects 
modified in committee, and reduced to form, it was reported to the house. 
It contained the following provisions : 

A national legislature to consist of two branches, the first to be elected 
by the people for three years ; the second to be chosen by the state 
legislatures for seven years, the members of both branches to be appor- 
tioned on the basis finally adopted ; the legislature to possess powers 



62 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

nearly the same as those originally proposed by Mr. Randolph. The 
executive was to consist of a single person to be chosen by the national 
legislature for seven years, and limited to a single term, and to have a 
qualified veto ; all bills not approved by him, to be passed by a vote of 
three-fourths of both houses in order to become laws. A national judi- 
ciary to consist of a supreme court, the judges to be appointed by the 
second branch of the legislature for the term of good behavior, and of 
such inferior courts as congress might think proper to establish. 

This plan being highly objectionable to the state rights party, a scheme 
agreeable to their views was submitted by Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey. 
This scheme, called the " New Jersey plan," proposed no alteration in 
the constitution of the legislature, but simply to give it the additional 
power, to raise a revenue by duties on foreign goods imported, and by 
stamp and postage taxes ; to regulate trade with foreign nations and 
among the states ; and, when requisitions made upon the states were not 
complied with, to collect them by its own authority. The plan proposed 
a federal executive, to consist of a number of person selected by congress ; 
and a federal judiciary, the judges to be appointed by the executive, and 
to hold their offices during good behavior. 

The Vii'ginia and New Jersey plans were now (June 19th) referred 
to a new committee of the whole. Another debate arose, in which the 
powers of the convention was the principal subject of discussion. It was 
again urged that their power had been, by express instruction, limited to 
an amendment of the existing confederation, and that the new system 
would not be adopted by the states. The vote was taken on the 19th, 
and the propositions of Mr. Patterson were rejected ; only New York, 
New Jersey, and Delaware, voting in the affirmative ; seven states in the 
negative ; and the members from Maryland equally divided. 

Mr. Randolph's propositions, as modified and reported by the com- 
mittee of the whole, were now taken up and considered separately. The 
division of the legislature into two branches, a house of representatives 
and a senate, was agreed to almost unanimously, one state only, Penn- 
sylvania, dissenting ; but the proposition to apportion the members to 
the states, according to population, was violently opposed. The small 
states insisted strenuously on retaining an equal vote in the legislature ; 
but at length consented to a proportional representation in the house, on 
condition that they should have an equal vote in the senate. 

Accordingly, on the 29th of June, Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, 
ofi'ered a motion, " that in the second branch, each state shall have an 
equal vote." This motion gave rise to a protracted and vehement de- 
bate. It was supported by Messrs, Ellsworth, Baldwin, of Georgia, 
Bradford, of Delaware, and others. It was urged on the ground of the 



FORMINa THE CONSTITUTION. 63 

necessity of a compromise between the friends of the confederation and 
those of a national government, and as a measure which would secure 
tranquillity, and meet the objections of the larger states. Equal repre- 
sentation in one branch would make the government partly federal, and 
a proportional representation in the other, would make it partly national. 
Equality in the second branch would enable the small states to protect 
themselves against the combined power of the large states. Fears were 
expressed, that without this advantage to the small states, it would be in 
the power of a few large states to control the rest. The small states, it 
was said, must possess this power of self-defense, or be ruined. 

The motion was opposed by Messrs. Madison, Wilson, of Pennsylvania, 
King, of Massachusetts, and Dr. Franklin. Mr. Madison thought there 
was no danger from the quarter from which it was apprehended. The 
great source of danger to the general government was the opposing inter- 
ests of the north and the south, as would appear from the votes of congress, 
which had been divided by geographical lines, not according to the size 
of the states. Mr. Wilson objected to state equality, that it would 
enable one-fourth of the union to control three-feurths. Respecting the 
danger of the three larger states combining together to give rise to a mon- 
archy or an aristocracy, he thought it more probable that a rivalship would 
exist between them, than that they would unite in a confederacy. Mr. 
King said the rights of Scotland were secure from all danger, though in the 
parliament she had a small representation. Dr. Franklin, (now in his 
eighty-second year) said as it was not easy to see what the greater states 
could gain by swallowing up the smaller ; he did not apprehend they 
would attempt it. In voting by states — the mode then existing — it was 
equally in the power of the smaller states to swallow up the greater. He 
thought the number of representatives ought to bear some proportion to 
the number of the represented. 

On the 2d of July, the question was taken on Mr. Ellsworth's motion, 
and lost — Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Mary- 
land, voting in the affirmative ; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina, in the negative ; Georgia divided. 
It will be remembered, that the delegates from New Hampshire were 
not yet present, and that Rhode Island had appointed none. This has 
been regarded by some as a fortunate circumstance ; as the votes of" 
these two small states would probably have given an equal vote to the 
states in both houses, if not have defeated the plan of a national govern- 
ment. 

The excitement now became intense, and the convention seemed to be 
on the point of dissolution. Luther Martin, of Maryland, who had 
taken a leading part in advocating the views of the state rights party, 



64 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

said each state must have an equal vote, or the business of the conven- 
tion was at an end. It having become apparent that this unhappy result 
could be avoided only by a compromise, Mr. Sherman, of Connecticxit. 
moved the appointment of a committee of conference, to consist of one 
member from each etate, and the motion prevailed. The convention 
then adjourned for three days, thus giving time for consultation, and an 
opportunity to celebrate the anniversary of independence. 

The report of this committee, which was made on the 5th of July, 
proposed, (1.) That in the first branch of the legislature, each state 
should have one representative for every forty thousand inhabitants, 
(three-fifths of the slaves being counted;) that each state not containing 
that number should be allowed one representative ; and that money bills 
should originate in this branch. (2.) That in the second branch each 
state should have one vote. These propositions were reported, it is said, 
at the suggestion of Dr. Franklin, one of the committee of conference. 

The report, of course, met with greater favor from the state rights 
party, than from their opponents. The equal vote in the senate continued 
to receive the most determined opposition from the national party. In 
relation to the rule of representation in the first branch of the legis- 
lature, also-, a great diversity of opinion prevailed. The conflicting 
interests to be reconciled in the settlement of this question, however, 
were those of the northern and southern, commercial and planting, rather 
than the imaginary interests of small and large states. 

In settling a rule of apportionment, several questions were to be con- 
sidered. What should be the number of representatives in the first 
branch of the legislature ? Ought the number from each state to be 
fixed, or to increase with the increase of population ? Ought population 
alone to be the basis of apportionment ? or should property be taken 
into account ? Whatever rule might be adopted, no apportionment 
founded upon population could be made until an enumeration of the 
inhabitants should have been taken. The number of representatives 
was therefore, for the time being, fixed at sixty-five, and apportioned as 
directed by the constitution. [Art. I, § 2.] 

In establishing a rule of future apportionment, great diversity of 
opinion was expressed. Although slavery then existed in all the states 
except Massachusetts, the great mass of the slave population was in the 
southern states. These states claimed a representation according to 
numbers, bond and free, while the northern states were in favor of a 
representation according to the number of free persons only. This rule 
was forcibly urged by several of the northern delegates. Mr. Patterson 
regarded slaves only as property. They were not represented in the 
states ; why should they be in the general government ? They were not 



FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 65 

allowed to vote ; why should they be represented ? It was an encour- 
agement of the slave trade. Said Mr. Wilson : " Are they admitted as 
citizens ? then why not on an equality with citizens ? Are they admitted 
as property ? then why is not other property admitted into the computa- 
tion ?" A large portion of the members of the convention, from both 
sections of the union, aware that neither extreme could be carried, 
favored the proposition to count the whole number of free citizens and 
three-fifths of all others. 

Prior to this discussion, a select committee, to whom this subject had 
been referred, had j-eported in favor of a distribution of the members on 
the basis of wealth and numbers, to be regulated by the legislature. 
Before the question was taken on this report, a proviso was moved and 
agreed to, that direct taxes should be in proportion to representation. 
Subsequently a proposition was moved for reckoning three-fifths of the 
Blaves in estimating taxes, and making taxation the basis of representa- 
tion, which was adopted ; New Jersey and Delaware against it, Massa- 
chusetts and South Carolina divided ; New York not represented, her 
three delegates being all absent. Yates and Lansing, both of the state 
rights party, considering their powers explicitly confined to a revision of 
the confederation, and being chagrined at the defeat of their attempts to 
secure an equal vote in the first branch of the legislature, had left the 
convention, not to return. From that time, (July 11th,) New York had 
no vote in the convention. Mr. Hamilton had left before the others, to 
be absent six weeks ; and though he returned, and took part in the 
deliberations, the state, not having two delegates present, was not enti- 
tled to a vote. On the 23d, Gilman and Langdon, the delegates from 
New Hampshire, arrived, when eleven states were again represented. 

The term of service of members of the first branch was reduced to 
two years, and of those of the second branch, to six years ; one- 
third of the members of the latter to go out of office every two years ; 
the representation in this body to consist of two members from each 
state, voting Individ ally, as in the other branch, and not by states, as 
under the confederation. Sundry other modifications were made in the 
provisions relating to this department. 

The reported plan of the executive department was next considered. 
After much discussion, and several attempts to strike out the ineligibility 
of the executive a second time, and to change the term of office, and the 
mode of election, these provisions were retained. 

The report of the committee of the whole, as amended, was accepted 
by the convention, and, together with the New Jersey plan, and a third 
drawn by Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, was referred to a com- 
mittee of detail, consisting of Messrs. Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham 

5 



o6 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Ellsworth, and Wilson, who, on the 6th of August, after an adjournment 
of ten days, reported the constitution in proper form, having inserted some 
new provisions, and altered certain others. Our prescribed limits forbid 
a particular account of the subsequent alterations which the copstitution 
received before it was finally adopted by the convention. There is one 
provision, however, which, as it forms one of the great "compromises of 
the constitution," deserves notice. 

To render the constitution acceptable to the southern states which 
were the principal exporting states, the committee of detail had inserted 
a clause, providing, that no duties should be laid on exports, or on slaves 
imported; and another, that no navigation act might be passed, except 
by a two-thirds vote. By depriving congress of the power of giving 
any j)reference to American over foreign shipping, it was designed to 
secure cheap transportation to southern exports. As the shipping was 
principally owned in the eastern states, their delegates were equally 
anxious to prevent any restriction of the power of congress to pass navi- 
gation laws. All the states, except North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Georgia, had prohibited the importation of slaves ; and North Carolina 
had proceeded so far as to discourage the importation by heavy duties. 
The prohibition of duties on the importation of slaves was demanded by 
the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, who declared that, with- 
out a provision of this kind, the constitution would not receive the assent 
of these states. The support which the proposed restriction received 
from other states, was given to it from a disposition to compromise, 
rather than from an approval of the measure itself The proposition 
not only gave rise to a discussion of its own merits, but revived the 
opposition to the apportionment of representatives according to the three- 
fifths ratio, and called forth some severe denunciations of slavery. 

Mr. King, in reference to the admission of slaves as a part of the 
representative population, remarked : " He had not made a strenuous op- 
position to it heretofore, because he had hoped that this concession would 
have produced a readiness, which had not been manifested, to strengthen 
the general government. The report of the committee put an end to all 
those hopes. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited ; ex- 
ports could not be taxed. If slaves are to be imported, shall not the ex- 
ports produced by their labor supply a revenue to help the government 
defend their masters ? There was so much inequality and unreasonable- 
ness in all this, that the people of the northern states could never be 
reconciled to it. He had hoped that some accommodation would have 
taken place on the subject ; that at least a time would have been limited 
for the importation of slaves. He could never agree to let them be im- 
ported without limitation, and then be represented in the national Icgis- 



FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 67 

lature. Either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be 
taxable." 

Gouverneur Morris pronounced slavery "a nefarious institution. It 
was the curse of Heaven on the states where it prevailed. Compare the 
free regions of the middle states, where a rich and noble cultivation 
marks the prosperity and happiness of the people, with the misery and 
poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and 
the other states having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and 
you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and dis- 
appearance of slavery. * * * The admission of slaves into the repre- 
sentation, when fairly explained, comes to' this, that the inhabitant of 
Georgia and South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa in defiance 
of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures 
from their dearest connections, and damns them to the most cruel bond 
age, shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection 
of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. * * * 
And what is the proposed compensation to the northern states for a 
sacrifice of every principle of right, every impulse of humanity ? They 
are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defense of the 
southern states, against those very slaves of whom they complain. The 
legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises and duties 
on imports, both of which will fall heavier on them than on the southern 
inhabitants ; for the Bohea tea used by a northern freeman, will pay 
more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which con- 
sists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag which 
covers his nakedness. On the other side, the southern states are not to 
be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at 
once to increase the danger of attack and the difficulty of defense ; 
nay, they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of having their 
votes in the national government increased in proportion, and, at the 
same time, are to have their slaves and their exports exempt from all 
contributions to the public service." Mr. Morris moved to make the 
free population alone the basis of representation. 

Mr. Sherman, who had on other occasions manifested a disposition to 
compromise, again favored the southern side. He " did not regard the 
admission of the negroes as liable to such insuperable objections. It was 
the freemen of the southern states who were to be represented according 
to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are only included in the esti- 
mate of the taxes." 

After some farther discussion, the question was taken upon Mr 
Morris' motion, and lost, New Jersey only voting for it. 



on THE AMERICAN STATESMA/J. 

With respect to proliibiting any restriction upon the importation of 
slaves, Mr. Martin, of Maryland, who moved to allow a tax upon slaves 
imported, remarked : " As five slaves in the apportionment of representa- 
tives were reckoned as equal to three freemen, such a permission amounted 
to an encouragemement of the slave trade. Slaves weakened the union 
which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing 
them was therefore unreasonable. Such a feature in the constitution was 
inconsistent with the principles of the revolution, and dishonorable to the 
American character." 

Mr. Rutledge " did not see how this section would encourage the im- 
portation of slaves. He wag- not apprehensive of insurrections, and 
would readily exempt the other states from every obligation to protect 
the south. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. 
Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question 
at present is, whether the southern states shall or shall not be parties to 
the union. If the northern states consult their interest, they will not 
oppose the increase of slaves, which will increase the commodities of 
which they will become the carriers." 

Mr. Ellsworth said : " Let every state import what it pleases. The 
morality or wisdom of slavery is a consideration belonging to the states. 
What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the states are the best 
judges of their particular interests." 

Mr. C. Pinekney said : " South Carolina can never receive the plan if 
it prohibits the slave trade. If the states be left at liberty on this sub- 
ject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of herself what is 
wished, as Maryland and Virginia already have done." 

Mr. Sherman concurred with his colleague, (Mr. Ellsworth.) " He 
disapproved the slave trade ; but as the states now possessed the right, 
and the public good did not require it to be taken away ; and as it was 
expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme 
of government, he would leave the matter as he found it. The abolition 
of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States, and the good sense 
of the several states would probably, by degrees, soon complete it." 

Mr. Mason said: " Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The 
poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immi- 
gration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They 
produce a pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born 
a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. He 
lamented that some of our eastern brethren, from a lust of gain, had em- 
barked in this nefarious traffic. As to the states being in possession of 
the right to import, that was the case of many otlier rights now to be 
given up. He held it essential, in every point of view, that the general 
government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery." 



FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 69 

Mr. Ellsworth, not well pleased with this thrust at his slave-trading 
friends at the north, by a slave holder, tartly replied : " As I have never 
owned a slave, I can not judge of the effects of slavery on character ; 
but if slavery is to be considered in a moral light, the convention ought 
to go further, and free those already in the country." The opposition 
of Virginia and Maryland to the importation of slaves he attributed to 
the fact, that, on account of their rapid increase in those states, " it was 
cheaper to raise them there than to import them, while in the sickly rice 
swamps foreign supplies were necessary. If we stop short with prohibit- 
ing their importation, we shall be unjust to South Carolina and Greorgia. 
Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be 
so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery, in time, will not be a 
speck in our country." 

Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, repeated the declaration, 
that, if the slave trade were prohibited, these states would not adopt the 
constitution. Virginia, it was said, would gain by stopping the impor- 
tation, she having slaves to sell ; but it would be unjust to South Caro- 
lina and Georgia, to be deprived of the right of importing. Besides, 
the importation of slaves would be a benefit to the whole union. The 
more slaves, the more produce, the greater carrying trade, the more con- 
sumption, the more revenue." 

The injustice of exempting slaves from duty, while every other import 
was subject to it, having been urged by several members in the course of 
the debate, C. Piuckney expressed his consent to a tax not exceeding the 
same on other imports, and moved to refer the subject to a committee. 
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rutledge, and at the suggestion of G. 
Morris, was so modified as to include the clauses relating to navigation 
laws and taxes on exports. The commitment was opposed by Messrs- 
Sherman and Ellsworth ; the former on the ground that taxes on slaves 
imported implied that they were property ; the latter from the fear of 
losing two states. Mr. Randolph was in favor of the motion, hoping to 
find some middle ground upon which they could unite. The motion pre- 
vailed, and the subject was referred to a committee of one from each 
state. The committee retained the prohibition of duties on exports ; 
struck out the restriction on the enactment of navigation laws ; and left 
the importation of slaves unrestricted, until the year 1 800 ; permitting 
congress, however, to impose a duty upon the importation. 

The debate upon this report of the grand committee, is condensed, by 
Hildreth, into the two following paragraphs : 

" Williamson declared himself, both in opinion and practice, against 
slavery ; but he thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of 
all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia en these terms, 



70 THE AMERioAN STATESMAN. 

than to exclude them from the union. Sherman again objected to the 
tax, as acknowledging men to be propei-ty. Gorham replied, that the 
duty ought to be considered, not as implying that men are property, but 
as a discouragement to their importation. Sherman said the duty was 
too small to bear that character. Madison thought it " wrong to admit, 
in the constitution, the idea tliat there could be property in man ;" and 
the phraseology of one clause was subsequently altered to avoid any such 
implication. Gr. Morris objected that the clause gave congress power to 
tax freemen imported ; to which Mason replied, that such a power was 
necessary to prevent the importation of convicts. A motion to extend 
the time from 1800 to 1808, made by C. C. Pinkuey, and seconded by 
Grorham, was carried against New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and 
Virginia ; Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire voting this 
time with Georgia and South Carolina. That part of the report which 
struck out the restriction on the enactment of navigation acts, was opposed 
by Charles Pinckney in a set speech, in which he enumerated five distinct 
commercial interests ; the fisheries and West India trade, belonging to 
New England ; the interest of New York in a free trade ; wheat and 
flour, the staples of New Jersey and Pennsylvania ; tobacco, the staple of 
Maryland and Virginia, and partly of North Carolina ; rice and indigo, 
the staples of South Carolina and Georgia. The same ground was taken 
by Williamson and Mason, and very warmly by Randolph, who declared 
that an unlimited power in congress to enact navigation laws, ' would 
complete the deformity of a system having already so many odious fea- 
tures, that he hardly knew if he could agree to it.' Any restriction of 
the power of congress over commerce was warmly opposed by Gouverneur 
Morris, Wilson and Gorham. Madison also took the same side. C. C. 
Pinckney did not deny that it was the true interest of the south to have 
no regulation of commerce ; but considering the commercial losses of the 
eastern states during the revolution, their liberal conduct toward the 
views of South Carolina, (in the vote just taken, giving eight years' fur- 
ther extension to the slave trade,) and the interest of the weak southern 
states in being united with the strong eastern ones, he should go against 
any restriction on the power of comitiercial regulation. ' He had him- 
self prejudices against the eastern states before he came here, but would 
acknowledge that he found them as liberal and candid as any men what- 
ever.' Butler and Rutledge took the same ground, and the same report 
was adopted, against the votes of Maryland, Virginia, North (/arolina, 
and Georgia. 

" Thus, by an understanding, or, as Gouverneur Morris called it, * a 
bargain,' between the commercial representatives of the northern states, 
and the delegates of South Carolina and Georgia, and in spite of the 



FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 71 

opposition of Maryland and Virginia, the unrestricted power of congress 
to pass navigation laws was conceded to the northern merchants, and to 
the Carolina rice planters, as an equivalent, twenty years' continuance 
of the African slave-trade. This was the third great compromise of the 
constitution. The other two were the concessions to the smaller states 
of an equal representation in the senate, and, to the slaveholders, the 
counting of three-fifths of the slaves in determining the ratio of repre- 
sentation. If this third compromise differed from the other two by in- 
volving not only a political, but a moral sacrifice, there was this partial 
compensation about it, that it was not permanent, like the others, but 
expired at the end of twenty years by its own limitation." 

Of the important subjects remaining to be disposed of, that of the exe- 
cutive department was, perhaps, the most difl&cult. The modified plan 
of Mr. Randolph left the executive to be elected by the legislature for 
a single term of seven years. The election was subsequently given to a 
college of electors, to be chosen in the states in such manner as the legis- 
latures of the states should direct. The term of service was reduced 
from seven to four years ; and the restriction of the office to a single 
term was removed. Numerous other amendments and additions were 
made in going through with the draft. This amended draft was referred, 
for final revision, to a committee consisting of Messrs. Hamilton, John- 
son, Gr. Morris, Madison, and King. Several amendments were made 
even after this revision ; one of which was the substitution of a two- 
thirds for the three-fourths majority required to pass bills against the 
veto of the president. Another was a proposition of Mr. Gorham, to 
reduce the minimum ratio of representation from 40,000, as it stood, to 
30,000, intended to conciliate certain members who thought the house too 
small. This was offered the day on which the constitution was signed. 
Gen. "Washington having briefly addressed the convention in favor of the 
proposed amendment, it was carried almost unanimously. 

The whole number of delegates who attended the convention, was 
fifty-five, of whom thirty-nine signed fhe constitution. Of the remaining 
sixteen, some had left the convention before its close ; others refused to 
give it their sanction. Several of the absentees were known to be in 
favor of the constitution. 

Some, as has been observed, were opposed to the plan of a national 
government, contending for the preservation of the confederation, with a 
mere enlargement of its powers ; others, though in favor of the plan 
adopted, believed too much power had been given to the general govern- 
ment. Some thought that not only the powers of congress, but those 
of the executive, were too extensive ; others, that the executive was 
" weak and contemptible," and without sufficient power to defend him- 



72 THE AMER. CAN STATESMAN, 

self against encroachments, by the legislature : others still, that the 
executive power of the nation ought not to be intrusted in a single person. 
Although some deprecated the extensive powers of the federal govern- 
ment as dangerous to the rights of the states, " ultra democracy" seems 
to have had no representatives in the convention ; while, on the other 
hand, there were not a few who thought it unsafe to trust the people 
with a direct exercise of power in the general government. Sherman 
and Gerry were opposed to the election of the first branch of the legis- 
lature by the people ; as were some of the southern delegates. Others, 
among whom were Madison, Mason, and Wilson, thought no republican 
government could be permanent in which the people were denied a direct 
voice in, the election of their representatives. Hamilton, though in favor 
of making the first branch elective, proposed that the senate should be 
chosen by electors chosen by the people, and the executive by electors 
chosen by electors, who were to be chosen by the people in districts ; sen- 
ators and the president both to hold their ofl&ces during good behavior. He 
was also, as were a few others, in favor of an absolute executive veto on 
acts of the legislature. He, however, signed the constitution, and urged 
others to do the same, as the only means of preventing anarchy and 
confusion. While the proposed constitution was in every particular 
satisfactory to none, very few were disposed to jeopard the union by the 
continuance of a system which all admitted to be inadequate to the 
objects of the union. To the hope, therefore, of finding the new plan an 
improvement on the old, and of amending its defects if any should appear, 
is to be attributed the general sanction which it received. 

It is indeed remarkable, that a plan.of government, containing so many 
provisions to which the most strenuous opposition was maintained to the 
end, should have received the signatures of so large a majority of the 
convention. Perhaps there never was another political body, in which 
views and interests more varied and opposite have been represented, or 
a greater diversity of opinion has prevailed. 

Nor is it less remarkable, that a system deemed so imperfect, not only 
by the mass of its framers, but by a large portion of the eminent men 
who composed the state conventions that ratified it, should have been 
found to answer so fully the purpose of its formation, as to require, dur- 
ing an experiment of more than sixty years, no essential alteration ; and 
that it should be esteemed as a model form of republican government by 
the enlightened friends of freedom in all countries. Not a single provi- 
sion of the constitution, as it came from the hands of the framers, except 
that which prescribed the mode of electing a president and vice-president, 
has received the slightest amendment. Of the twelve articles styled 
amendments, the first eleven are merely additions ; some of which were 



RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 73 

intended to satisfy the scruples of those who objected to the constitution 
as incomplete withoat a hill of rights, supposing their common law rights 
would be rendered more secure by an express guaranty ; others are ex- 
planatory of certain provisions of the constitution which were considered 
liable to misconstruction. The twelfth article is the amendment changing 
the mode of electing the president and vice-president. 

In the differences of opinion between the friends and opponents of the 
constitution, originated the two great political parties into which the 
people were divided during a period of about thirty years. It is gener- 
ally supposed that the term " Federalist" was first applied to those who 
advocated the plan of the present constitution. This opinion, however, 
is not correct. Those members of the convention who were in favor of 
the old plan of union, which was a simple confederation or federal 
alliance of equal independent states, were called federalists, and their 
opponents anti-federalists. After the new constitution had been submit- 
ted to the people for ratification, its friends, regarding its adoption 
indispensable to union, took the name of federalists, and bestowed 
upon the other party that of anti-federalists, intimating that to oppose 
the adoption of the constitution was to oppose any union of the states. 

The new constitution bears date the 17th of September, 1787. It 
was immediately transmitted to congress, with a recommendation to that 
body to submit it to state conventions for ratification, which was accord- 
ingly done. It was adopted by Delaware, December 7 ; by Pennsylvania, 
December 12; by New Jersey, December 18; by Georgia, January 2, 
1788 ; by Connecticut, January 9 ; by Massachusetts, February 7 ; by 
Maryland, April 28 ; by South Carolina, May 23 ; by New Hampshire, 
June 21 ; which, being the ninth ratifying state, gave effect to the con- 
stitution. Virginia ratified June 27 ; New York, July 26 ; and North 
Carolina, conditionally, August 7. Khode Island did not call a con- 
vention. 

In Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, the new constitution 
encountered a most formidable opposition, which rendered its adoption 
by these states for a time extremely doubtful. In their conventions 
were men on both sides who had been members of the national conven- 
tion, associated with others of distinguished abilities. In Massachusetts 
there were several adverse influences which would probably have defeated 
the ratification in that state, had it not been accompanied by certain pro- 
posed amendments to be submitted by congress to the several states for 
ratification. The adoption of these by the convention gained for the 
constitution the support of Hancock and Samuel Adams ; and the 
question on ratification was carried by one hundred and eighty-seven 
against cne hundred and sixty-eight 



74 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

In the Virginia convention, the constitution was opposed by PatricL. 
Henry, James Monroe, and George Mason, the last of whom had been 
one of the convention of framers. On the other side were John Mar- 
shall, Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Madison, George Wythe, and Edmund Ran- 
dolph, the three last also having been members of the national conven- 
tion. Mr. Randolph had refused to sign the constitution, but had 
become one of its warmest advocates. In the convention of this state 
also, the ratification was aided by the adoption of a bill of rights and 
certain proposed amendments ; and was carried, eighty-eight yeas against 
eighty nays. 

In the convention of New York, the opposition embraced a majority 
of its members, among whom were Yates and Lansing, members of the 
general convention, and George Clinton. The principal advocates of the 
constitution were John Jay, Robert R. liivingston, and Mr. Hamilton. 
Strong efforts were made for a conditional ratification, which were suc- 
cessfully opposed, though not without the previous adoption of a bill of 
rights, and numerous amendments. With these, the absolute ratification 
was carried, thirty-one to twenty-nine. 

The ratification of North Carolina was not received by Congress, until 
January, 1790 ; and that of Rhode Island, not until June of the same 
year. 

After the ratification of New Hampshire had been received by con- 
gress, the ratifications of the nine states were referred to a committee, 
who, on the 14th of July, 1788, reported a resolution for carrying the 
new government into operation. The passage of the resolution, owing to 
the difficulty of agreeing upon the place for the meeting of the first con- 
gress, was delayed until the 13th of September. The first Wednesday 
of January, 1789, was appointed for choosing electors of president, and 
the first Wednesday of February for the electors to meet in their respec- 
tive states to vote for president and vice-president ; and the first Wednes- 
day, the 14th of March, as the time, and New York as the place, to 
commence proceedings under the new constitution. 



CHAPTER V. 

MEETING OF THE FIRST CONGRESS. A SYSTEM OF FINANCE ADOPTEB.— 

THE FUNDING OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. 

Pursuant to appointment, congress assembled at New York on the 
4tli of March, 1789 ; but a quorum of the house of representatives was 
not present until the 1st of April, nor of the senate until the 6th. On 
counting the electoral votes, it appeared that Greorge Washington was 
unanimously elected president, and that John Adams was, by the next 
highest number of votes, elected vice-president. On the 30th of April, 
the oath of office was administered to the president ; and soon after, he 
delivered his inaugural address to the senate and house of representatives. 

Many important subjects demanded the immediate attention of con- 
gress. The depressed state of commerce, caused by the restrictive 
policy of foreign nations, which there was no power in the old system to 
counteract, and the want of revenue adequate to the public necessities, 
were the chief causes that led to the recent change in the government. 
These, therefore, were the first objects to receive the attention of con- 
gress. 

Immediately after the organization of the house, Mr. Madison moved 
a resolution, declaring the opinion, that certain duties ought to be levied 
on goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States, and 
on the tonnage of vessels. A law was accordingly passed, with a pream- 
ble declaring it to be "necessary for the support of government, for the 
discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement of 
manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandises 
imported." This law imposed specific duties on a long list of enumerated 
articles, and an ad valorem duty upon others. The duties on goods im- 
ported in American vessels were ten per cent, less than if brought in 
foreign vessels. An act was also passed, laying discriminating duties on 
tonnage ; American vessels being charged with a duty of six cents a ton; 
foreign vessels, fifty cents a ton. 

The discrimination in favor of American shipping was opposed on the 
ground that it was insufficient to transport all the produce of the country, 
and the extra tonnage duty upon foreign vessels would enhance the cost 
of transportation, and thus operate as a tax upon agriculture, and a pre- 
mium to navigation. 



76 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

In reply to this argument, Mr. Madison said, if it was expedient for 
America to have vessels employed in commerce at all, it would be 
proper that she should have enough to answer all the purposes intended ; 
to form a school for seamen ; to lay the foundation of a navy ; and to be 
able to support herself against the interference of foreigners. Granting 
a preference to our own navigation would insensibly bring it forward to 
that perfection so essential to American safety ; and though it might 
produce some little inequality at first, it would soon ascertain its level, 
and become uniform throughout the union. 

A proposition also was adopted by the house of representatives, making 
a difference in favor of nations which had formed commercial treaties 
with the United States ; but the senate did not assent to the discrimina- 
tion. North Carolina and Rhode Island, not having acceded to the 
union, were in the situation of foreign states. By special enactments, 
however,' goods of the growth or manufacture of these states were exempt- 
ed from foreign duties ; and their vessels were to be entitled to the same 
privileges as those of the United States, imtil the 15th of January, 1790. 

Three auxiliary executive departments were established at this session : 
the department of foreign affairs — since called department of state — the 
department of the treasury, and the department of war. These, or 
similar departments, had for some time existed ; but they were now 
reorganized, and adapted to the new government. 

In organizing these departments, the question arose, whether the 
officers of these departments could be removed by the president alone, 
or whether the concurrence of the senate was necessary, as in their 
appointment. In the Federalist, (No. Ixxvii,) Mr. Hamilton says : '* It 
has been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from the 
cooperation of the senate, in the business of appointments, that it would 
contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of that 
body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint. A change 
of the chief magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so vehement or 
general a revolution in the officers of the government, as might be 
expected if he were the sole disposer of offices. When a man, in any 
situation, had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new 
president would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a 
person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that the discoun- 
tenance of the senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring discredit 
upon himself." 

This construction was supported by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Gerry, both 
of whom had been members of the general convention, and others. It 
was argued, that, as the president and senate were associated in making 
appointments the fair inference was, that they must agree in removals. 



MEETING OF THE FIRST CONGRESS. 77 

This power, in the hands of the prf sident alone, was dangerous to liberty. 
It was in its nature monarchical, and would convert executive officers 
into mere instruments of his will. 

Among those who maintained the opposite side, were Mr. Madison 
and Mr. Baldwin, also members of the convention. The executive power 
was, by the constitution, vested in the president; and the power of 
removal was in its nature completely executive. The president was 
required to see the laws faithfully executed ; and how could he be an- 
swerable for a faithful execution of the laws, without the power of 
removing an officer whose cooperation was necessary to their execution. 
Besides, an immediate removal might become necessary; and the public 
interest might suffer by the delay in convening the senate. After 
several days' discussion, the question was decided, 34 to 20, in favor of 
conferring on the president alone the power of removal. 

In filling the offices of these departments, Mr. Jefferson was appointed 
secretary of foreign affairs ; Mr. Hamilton, secretary of the treasury ; 
Gen. Knox, of Massachusetts, was continued as secretary of war ; and 
Edmund Randolph was appointed attorney-general. 

The judiciary department, also, was established at this session. John 
Jay, of New York, was appointed chief justice; John Rutledge, of 
South Carolina, James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, William Gushing, of 
Massachusetts, Robert Harrison, of Maryland, and John Blair, of Vir- 
ginia, associate justices. 

At this session, the states of Virginia and New York petitioned con- 
gress to call a convention to amend the constitution. Congress having 
no authority to call a convention, a proposition was made by Mr. Madi- 
son for recommending to the states the adoption of certain additional 
articles to the constitution. Twelve articles were agreed to by the con- 
stitutional majority of two- thirds of both houses, and proposed to the 
states. Ten of these articles, being the first ten subjoined to the con- 
stitution, were adopted by the states. 

Congress adjourned on the 29th of September, to meet on the first 
Monday of January, 1790. Before the adjournment, by a resolution of 
both houses, the president was requested to recommend a day of public 
thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, " by acknowledging with grate- 
ful hearts, the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by 
affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of 
government, for their safety and happiness." 

Among the objects recommended by the president to the attention of 
congress at its next session, were those of " providing for the common 
defense ;" of " promoting such manufactures as tend to render the people 
independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies ;" 



78 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of " the promotion of science and literature ;" and of making " adequate 
provision for the support of the public credit." 

The groat measure of the session was the act carrying into effect the 
last mentioned of these objects. The house had at the preceding session, 
directed the " secretary of the treasury to prepare a plan for that pur^ 
pose, and to report the same to the house at its next meeting. The 
plan of the secretary was accordingly reported on the 1 4th of January.* 
The foreign debt, due principally to France and individual lenders in 
Holland, was $11,710,378, of which about a million and a half was in- 
terest. The domestic debt, of which nearly a third was for arrears of 
interest, was estimated at $42,414,085. This sum included two millions 
which was allowed for claims yet unliquidated, principally outstanding 
continental money. The secretary proposed to assume the debts of the 
several states, estimated at $25,000,000, and then to fund the whole debt. 

To such a state of depression had the public credit been sunk, that the 
government paper had been parted with by original creditors for one- 
sixth to one-eighth of its nominal value; and it was still doubtful 
whether the government would be able fully to discharge its obligations. 
Hence, to devise a plan that should maintain the honor and retrieve the 
credit of the nation, and do perfect justice to all the public creditors, 
was not an easy task. That any plan within the compass of human 
ingenuity should receive the unanimous approval of congress, was not to 
be expected. With respect to the recommendation of the secretary, that 
the foreign debt should be provided for according to the precise terms of 
the contract, there was no difference of opinion. But the secretary 
" regretted, that with respect to the domestic debt, the same unanimity 
did not prevail." 

The secretary supported the several propositions of his report at 
length, and with great ability. He maintained that no discrimination 
ought to be made between original holders of the public securities, and 
present possessors by purchase. He deemed this equally unjust and im- 
politic ; highly injurious even to the original holders, and ruinous to 
public credit. Nor did he think a difference ought to be permitted to 
remain between the creditors of the union and those of individual states. 
Both descriptions of debt, he said, were contracted for the same objects, 
and were in the main the same. A great part of the debt of the states 
had been contracted by them on account of the union ; and it was most 
equitable that they should be assumed by the union. 

Several plans were submitted by the secretary to the option of congress -, 
neither of which was adopted entire, but together formed the basis of 
the act subsequently passed. It was proposed to open new loans for the 
full amount of the domestic debt, including that of the states, and, for 



A SYSTEM OF FINANCE ADOPTED. 79 

the sums subscribed, to receive in payment certificates of debt held by 
public creditors. It was proposed, that for every hundred dollars sub- 
scribed payable in debt, interest as well as principal, the subscriber 
should have two-thirds funded on a yearly interest of six per cent., the 
current rate, (the capital to be redeemable at the pleasure of the govern- 
ment by the payment of the principal,) and should receive the other 
third in lands of the western territory at their actual value ; or, instead 
of the lands, to have, at the end of ten years, $26,88 funded at the same 
rate of interest. 

Another proposal was, to have the whole sum funded at a yearly inter- 
est of four per cent., irredeemable by any payment exceeding five dollars 
annually on the hundred, for both principal and interest ; and as a com- 
pensation for the reduction of interest, $15,80 on every hundred, payable 
in land. 

There were still other propositions, one of which was, the payment of 
subscriptions in annuities, on different plans. 

An argument of the secretary in favor of funding the debt was, that 
the provision of a permanent fund for its payment would, by establishing 
the public credit, enable the government in any emergency, to procure 
the means of supplying the public necessity. It was said also, that the 
fluctuation and insecurity incident to an unfunded debt, rendered it a 
mere commodity, and a precarious one ; and being only an object of 
speculation, the money thus employed was so much diverted from more 
useful purposes; and thus contributed to the scarcity of money. Whereas, 
it was well known, that in countries in which the national debt was pro- 
perly funded, and an object of confidence, it served most of the purposes 
of money. Such, he believed, would be the result in America, and the 
capital thus created, " would invigorate all the operations of agriculture, 
manufactures, and commerce." 

The proposition to restrict the government to the payment of so small 
sums annually toward redeeming the capital of the debt, was intended 
as an inducement to creditors to consent to the arrangement. The rate 
of interest was then six per cent.; but it was presumed that, when the pub- 
lic credit should have become firmly established, the government would be 
able to borrow money at greatly reduced rates ; and creditors would be 
compelled to receive either these low rates of interest, or the payment 
of the capital. By the proposed arrangement, creditors would be assured, 
for a long and certain period, a fixed rate of interest, at six per cent., as 
an eq^uivalent for the reduction of the principal, or the postponement of 
the interest on a part of it. As creditors were left free to accept or 
reject the terms offered, those who should not subscribe, were to receive 
a dividend of the surplus that should remain in the treasury after paying 



OU THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

the interest of the loans. But as the funds to be jirovided were not 
expected to produce at present more than four per cent, on the whole 
debt, only that rate of interest was to be paid. By thus reducing either 
the principal or the rate of interest, a revenue might be provided suffi- 
cient to meet the increased demand upon the treasury caused by the 
adoption of the proposed measure. For this purpose, the secretary 
recommended an increase of duties on wines, spirits, tea, and coffee, and 
an excise tax on home distilled spirits. 

" This celebrated report," says Judge Marshall, " which has been the 
fruitful theme of extravagant praise and bitter censure, merits the more 
attention, because in the measures which were founded on it, originated 
the first regular and systematic opposition to the principles on which 
the affairs of the union were administered." 

A great diversity of opinion on this subject prevailed in the house. 
Hostility to funding systems generally was declared. It was also con- 
tended that the United States were not bound to pay the domestic cre- 
ditors the full amount expressed in their certificates of debt, because the 
original holders, by parting with them at two shillings and six-pence in 
the pound, had fixed the value of their cla'ims, and a motion was made, 
proposing a rc-settlement of the debt. 

To this proposition it was objected, that creditors had a right to place 
confidence in the government for the discharge of debts acknowledged to 
be due according to settlements already made. For a legislature to 
reduce an ascertained debt, was pronounced unjust, and subversive of 
every principle on which public contracts are founded. The motion 
was lost. 

Mr. Madison proposed to pay the present holders of certificates the 
highest price which the debt had borne in the market, and the original 
holders the residue. It was urged in favor of this proposition, that the 
original debt was to have been paid in gold and silver ; but the creditor 
had been compelled to take paper at a great loss, in consequence of the 
default of the debtor, who ought not to take advantage of his default. 
By paying him the average price at which the debt liad been sold, and 
the original holder the remainder, equal justice would be done to both. 

It was said, in reply, that to require the present holders to relinquish 
a part of their claim, for which they had paid a valuable consideration, 
would be a violation of contracts, and therefore unconstitutional. It 
was not the business of the legislature to inquire into private tran- 
sactions between individuals. If the original creditor had an equitable 
claim on the present holder, its adjustment belonged to the judicial 
courts. The misfortune of those who had been obliged, from necessity, 
to part with their securities, was admitted ; but congress could not afford 



A SYSTEM OF FINANCE ADOPTED. 81 

redress. Purchasers had placed greater confidence in the government 
than the original holder, and had run a risk in purchasing the paper : 
they were therefore justly entitled to the full amount of their claims. 
The interests of the community were promoted by making a public debt 
transferable ; but interference by the government in cases of transfer, 
would destroy confidence in public engagements. Besides, certificates 
had passed through several hands, and intermediate purchasers had 
often suffered as much as the original holder ; but for them no relief 
was proposed. After considerable farther debate, the question was 
taken, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madison was rejected, thirty- 
six to thirteen. 

The proposition to assume the debts of the states, was the subject of 
greater controversy, and a more excited debate, than any other contained 
in the report. 

In opposition to this part of the plan, it was said, that the creditors 
of the states had not applied to congress for the measure ; and it was 
presumed that they were satisfied with what the states had done for 
them, and did not wish to exchange their state securities for those of the 
general government. The task of providing for the real debts of the 
union was sufficiently arduous, and the assumption of more debts might 
disenable the government from doing justice to its real creditors. It was 
said, too, that the debts of the states had not yet been ascertained, and 
it would be imprudent to assume them until it should be known what 
were the balances due them from the union, as the augmentation of the 
debt might impose a burden which would require taxation to a dangerous 
extent. The states could more effectually, and with less dissatisfaction 
to the people, provide for the payment of their debts, than the general 
government. The assumption would be unjust also, as the consumers of 
foreign articles would bear the whole expense of the war, except the very 
trifling revenues to be derived from postage and excise on distilled spirits. 
It would be unjust to those states which had already taxed themselves 
heavily to discharge their debts, as they would be obliged to bear an 
equal share of the burden with others which had made little exertion to 
diminish theirs. It was objected, too, that if the general government 
was made to pay all the debts, it must have all the revenue, which was, 
in effect, to have all the power. This would give too much importance 
to the federal government, and lessen the importance of the state gov- 
ernments, and lead to too close a consolidation of the union. Besides, 
the measure did not appear to be constitutional, no power having been 
granted to the general government to assume the debts of the states. 

It was farther objected, that by the proposed augmentation of the debt 
of the union, it would be perpetuated. A public debt was not a public 



82 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

blessing, as some seemed to think, but an evil ; and to increase it by 
adding to it the debts of the states, would increase the evil, and impair 
the public credit ; it was the character of paper to diminish in value, in 
proportion to the quantity in circulation. These debts, too, if assumed 
by the union, would, as the continental debt had already done, accumulate 
in the larger cities, and in the hands of foreigners; and the greater portion of 
the money for which the people were taxed, would go out of the country. 

It was urged also, that a portion of the state debts had been contracted 
for purposes strictly local ; and it was impossible to distinguish these 
debts, in all cases, from those contracted for general objects. The cre- 
ditors in some states might come into the measure, while in others they 
refused : this would render it difficult, if not impossible, to carry the 
system into effect. Nor was it probable that any general system of in- 
ternal taxation would be acceptable to all the states. Each state, there- 
fore, ought to be left free to adopt such a system of revenue as it should 
deem best adapted to its circumstances. 

In favor of assumption it was said, that one body could more efficiently 
draw forth the resources of the union than many. These debts must be 
paid, either by the general government or by the respective states ; and 
it could be done with greater ease and facility, and with less expense, 
under one general uniform system. Some states derived their revenue 
from excise ; and if, as was contemplated by the proposed plan, excises 
should be laid by the general government also, there would be a clashing 
of the two systems. To the objection, that the amount of the states had 
not been ascertained, it was announced that it had been ascertained 
not to exceed twenty-five millions ; and congress might be restricted 
to that amount. It had |)een said, that the merits of particular 
claims was not known. They had been proved to the satisfaction 
of the states, and that was a sufficient guarantee of their justice. If it 
was for the true interest of the United States and of the claimants, 
to adopt the measure, it was unnecessary to wait for applications. If 
the creditors chose to change their state securities for those of the United 
States, the states surely could have no objection : they had nothing to 
do with the transaction. When the domestic debt should be funded, the 
most productive revenues would be taken away from the states and their 
ability to pay would be lessened ; and the state creditors would prefer 
the paper of the United States, which would be better provided for. But 
if any state creditors should refuse to subscribe, let the states receive the 
money from the general government, and pay it over to their creditors. 

To the alleged injustice of throwing the burden upon the consumers 
of foreign articles, it was replied, that all classes of inhabitants were con- 
sumers of foreign goods; and the rich families consumed much more than 



FUNDING OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. 83 

the poor. It had been said to be unjust to tax states that had made great 
exertions to pay their debts, equally with those that had not. To thia 
it was answered, that every state must be considered to have exerted 
itself to the extent of its resources ; and whether it was unable or 
unwilling to do justice to its creditors, the union was equally bound to 
assume its debts. 

To the argument that this measure would lessen the influence of the 
state governments, it was replied, that congress, as well as the state legis- 
latures, derived their authority from the people, who could apply the 
remedy to the abuse of power by their representatives. 

It was said farther, in favor of assumption, that the war had been one 
in which the states had made common cause. Its object had been the 
liberty and independence, not of any particular state, but of all the 
states ; and the debts of the states had not been contracted for their 
individual benefit, but for the benefit of the union, and to promote a 
cause in which all the states had an equal interest. For the means of 
payment, the states had relied upon imposts, which constituted their 
principal fund. By the constitution their power over imposts had been 
assumed by the federal government, which ought now to assume their 
debts. The measure was also constitutional. The confederation author- 
ized congress to raise money ; but congress not being able to do it directly 
or immediately, did it mediately through the state governments : hence, 
these debts, having been contracted in compliance with the requisitions 
of congress, were to be considered the debts of the union. 

Creditors of the states and those of the United States ought to be 
placed upon the same footing. Some states, possessing greater resources, 
might make ample provision for the payment of their debts ; while 
others, having less means and a larger debt, might be unable to do their 
creditors justice. The states, deprived of the power to lay imposts, must 
have recourse to direct taxes and excises. These, on account of the in- 
equality of their debts, would be very unequal in the different states. 
Direct taxation would fall most heavily upon the landed interest, and 
encourage emigration to states less burdened with taxes. The aggregate 
amount to be collected from the people was the same, whether the debts 
were assumed or not ; and, not only could the collection be made more 
economically under one uniform system, but the national government, 
having the sole management of the revenues, could more effectually pro- 
mote the various branches of domestic industry. 

The friends of assumption denied that they considered " a public 
debt a public blessing ;" they admitted it to be an evil. The debt had 
been already contracted ; and they desired now to mitigate the evil. 
They believed it better policy to give it a form in which it would sub- 



S4 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

serve the purpose of a circulating medium, than to leave it a subject of 
mere speculation. If adequate funds should be provided for the payment 
of the debt, its effect upon the public credit would not be unfavorable. 
Nor was any evil to be apprehended from its flowing into the large cities. 
It would be a moneyed capital held by those who wish to place money at 
interest. Funding the debt would give the stock a permanent character, 
and enable its owners to sell it at its nominal value, instead of its present 
low rate. No injury could result from its being purchased by foreigners. 
Their purchasing our funds would bring specie into the United States ; 
and the sooner the debt was brought to its proper standard, the sooner 
these benefits would be realized. 

The question on the resolution to assume the state debts, was carried, 
31 to 26. A few days after this decision, the representatives from 
North Carolina arrived ; the resolution wjus recommitted, and after 
another warm and protracted debate, it was negatived, by a majority 
of two votes ! Before the passage of the funding bill, however, the 
proposition for assumption was brought forward as an amendment to 
the bill, but in a modified form. Instead of assuming an uncertain sum, 
the amendment proposed the assumption of specified sums from each 
state. But the committee rose before a direct vote could be had upon 
the motion ; and the bill reported to the house with an amendment pro- 
posing to fund the outstanding continental money at the rate of seventy- 
five for one, was passed, and sent to the senate for concurrence. 

While the funding bill was pending in the senate, the law establishing 
a temporary and permanent seat of government was passed. It was by 
the aid of this law, that the friends of assumption finally succeeded in 
carrying the latter measure. Certain northern members voted to fix the 
seat of government permanently on the Potomac, in consideration of 
receiving in return a sufficient number of southern votes in favor of 
assumption, to carry the measure. 

The act, as finally passed, authorized the president to borrow not 
exceeding $12,000,000, for the payment of the foreign debt; the money 
borrowed to be reimbursable within fifteen years. It also authorized a 
new loan for the whole of the domestic debt ; two-thirds of the principal 
to draw interest at six per cent., to commence the 1st of January, 1791 ; 
the other third, to draw the same interest, but not to commence till after 
the year 1800. Subscriptions to the loan were payable in certificates of 
the domestic debt at their par value, and in continental bills of credit, at 
the rate of one hundred for one : the debt to be redeemable by payments 
not exceeding eight per cent, annually, on account of both principal and 
interest. Arrears of interest were also to be funded to the full amount, 
but to draw interest at only three per cent., commencing the 1st of Jan- 



FUNDING OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. 85 

uary, 1791, and to be redeemable at the pleasure of the government 
Non-subscribing creditors were entitled to the same interest as sub- 
scribers ; but they were left to greater uncertainty, as they could be paid 
only out of any surplus in the treasury. 

Of the debts of the states $21,500,000 were assumed, in specific sums 
from each state, regard being had to the amount of indebtedness of each. 
They were as follows : From Massachusetts and South Carolina, each 
$4,000,000; Virginia, $3,500,000; North Carolina, $2,400,000; Penn- 
sylvania, $2,200,000; Connect'icut, $1,600,000 ; New York, $1,200,000; 
New Jersey and Maryland, each $800,000 ; New Hampshire and Georgia, 
each $300,000; Rhode Island and Delaware, each $200,000; (the 
former having joined the union, and her delegation having arrived before 
the passage of this act.) For these state debts an additional loan was 
to be opened, but on terms different from that for the continental debt. 
Four-ninths was to bear an interest of six per cent., commencing on the 
1st of January, 1792 ; two-ninths, the same interest after the year 1800 ; 
and the other third three per cent, from January, 1792. No certificates 
of state debts were to be received on subscriptions, except such as had 
been issued for services -or supplies in the war. A board, consisting of 
three commissioners, was constituted to settle the accounts between the 
states and the United States. 

The duties imposed by the act of the last session were increased ; and 
the duties on imports and tonnage, (after deducting $600,000 annually 
for current expenses,) together with the proceeds of the sales of western 
lands, were pledged as a permanent fund, for the payment of the public 
debt. 

At this session of congress, the cession, by North Carolina, of her 
western lands, was received and approved ; and the territory south of 
the Ohio was formed into a government, similar to that previously estab- 
blished north of that river. Its constitution did not, however, embrace 
the anti-slavery proviso contained in the constitution of the north-western 
territory. 

The 'establishment of a permanent seat of government for the United 
States, after the treaty of peace with Great Britain, received the 
early attention of Congress. In the month of June, 1783, congress then 
sitting at Philadelphia, was surrounded and insulted by a small body of 
mutineers of the continental army ; and having, on application to the 
executive authority of Pennsylvania, failed to receive protection, removed 
to Princeton, in New Jersey, and afterwards, for the sake of greater con- 
venience, adjourned to Annapolis. This circumstance probably sug- 
gested to congress the necessity of some place for a permanent residence 
under its own authority, which was subsequently provided for in the 



8b THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

constitution. [Art. I, sec. 8, clause 17.] In October, 1783, it was 
resolved, that buildings for the use of congress should be erected on the 
banks of the Delaware ; and a few days later, that buildings for a simi- 
lar purpose should likewise be erected on the Potomac, with the 
view of reconciling the conflicting wishes of the northern and south- 
ern states, by establishing two seats of government. In December, 1784, 
it was farther resolved that a district should be purchased on the banks 
of the Delaware for a federal town, and that contracts should be made 
for the necessary buildings. But the appropriation of the money for 
these purposes, requiring the assent of nine states, was prevented by the 
southern interest. 

The subject came up before the new congress, near the close of the 
first session. The eastern states wished, at least for the present, to 
retain the seat of government at New York. Pennsylvania endeavored 
to bring it back to Philadelphia or its vicinity. The southern states 
desired its establishment on the Potomac. A majority of both houses 
not having agreed upon anyplace, the subject was postponed till the next 
session ; when, by a combination between the friends of Philadelphia, 
(aided also, as has been observed, by certain northern members,) and the 
friends of the Potomac, the seat of government was to be at Philadel- 
phia for ten years, the time estimated to be necessary to erect the public 
buildings, and after the expiration of that term, to be permanently fixed 
on the Potomac. 



CHAPTER VI. 

EXCISE ON DISTILLED SPIRITS. INCORPORATION OF A NATIONAL BANK. 

APPORTIONMENT BILL. WAR WITH THE WESTERN INDIANS. 

The third session of the first congress, (this congress having held 
three sessions,) commenced at Philadelphia, on the 6th of December, 
1790. Provision was to be made at this session for the payment of the 
assumed debts of the states. The secretary of the treasury had, in his 
original report, suggested for this purpose an increase of duties on im- 
ported wines, spirits, tea and cofiee, and a duty onjiome distilled spirits. 
The assumption had not been adopted until near the close of the session, 
and the strong objections to the proposed revenue measure which had 



EXCISE ON DISTILLED SPIRITS. 87 

been expressed, gave indications of a long discussion, upon which mem- 
bers were not then disposed to enter : and as the interest to be provided 
for was not to commence until the year 1792, the subject was deferred 
to the next session, and the secretary was ordered to report such far- 
ther provision as he should think necessary for the support of the public 
credit. 

Party lines began to be more distinctly marked. The anti-federalists, 
having in a great measure relaxed their hostility to the constitution, now 
arrayed themselves against the financial measures of the government. 
No general opposition had been made by that party to the funding of the 
continental debt ; but the assumption of the state debts encountered a 
bitter hostility from the beginning; and, in connection with certain other 
measures, was made the ground of general and open opposition of the 
anti-federalists to the administration. Resolutions denouncing the 
scheme were passed by the legislatures of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Mary- 
land, and North Carolina. The peculiar friends of tlie state govern- 
ments regarded with jealousy any measure of internal taxation by the 
general government ; and their aversion to excises needed little stimulus 
like that administered by their state legislatures, to raise it to indigna- 
tion. To this cause, in part, has been ascribed the forcible resistance, in 
western Pennsylvania, to the execution of the law, of which we shall 
soon have occasion to speak. The more western portion of the popula- 
tion being to a less extent the consumers of foreign goods, and conse- 
quently less aJSfected by imposts, the greatest opposition to the duty on 
domestic distilled spirits came from that quarter. 

A bill conforming to the report of the secretary was introduced, and, 
after a strong and vehement opposition, chiefly from southern and west- 
ern members, was passed. The principal objections urged against the 
bill, were, that suflicient evidence had not been given of the insufficiency 
of the taxes already imposed, to meet the public demand ; that the tax 
was unequal, as it would throw the greatest burden upon those parts of 
the country which aiforded no substitute for ardent spirits ; and that a 
less exceptionable source of revenue might be found. A general increase 
of duty on imports ; a duty on molasses, a direct tax, a tax on salaries, 
pensions and lawyers ; a duty on newspapers, and stamp duties, were 
severally mentioned by different members, as preferable to an excise on 
spirits. 

In favor of the bill it wag said, that estimates founded on official state- 
ments of the receipts into the treasury since the revenue bill went into 
operation, and other reliable data, showed the insufficiency of the exist- 
ing sources of revenue. Imposts on foreign goods could not be safely 
•sarried farther. Mercantile capital was too limited, and the increased 



88 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

duties might induce smuggling, and diminish the revenue instead of 
increasing it. Experience had proved, that a tax on consumption was 
less burdensome than a tax on property ; that, by indirect and insensible 
means, more could be drawn from the people than by open and direct 
taxation. The proposed tax was not unequal, and liable to the objec- 
tions against excises generally, the burden of which fell upon the poor 
who buy in small quantities, whilst the rich by storing their cellars, 
escaped the duty. This bill required the duty to be paid by the im- 
porter of foreign spirits, and by the manufacturer of domestic spirits, 
and no article was a fitter subject of taxation. The bill passed the 
house by a vote of 35 to 21, and went to the senate, where it received 
some slight amendment, which was concurred in by the house. 

The establishment of a national bank was the most prominent measure 
of the session. In reporting farther provisions for establishing the pub- 
lic credit, the secretary expressed the " conviction, that a national bank 
is an institution ot primary importance to the prosperous administration 
of the finances, and would be of the greatest utility in the operations 
connected with the support of the public credit." 

In the whole course of legislation under the constitution, no other 
question — that of a protective tariff, perhaps, alone excepted — has been 
more thoroughly discussed than the one under consideration. Bills for 
the incorporation of a national bank have been no less than nine or ten 
times before the national legislature, and several times has the measure 
been arrested by the executive veto. At every discussion, the whole 
field of argument has been explored for reasons in favor of and against 
an institution of this kind ; and quite as often has it been to the party 
politician the theme of fierce declamation, as to the statesman a subject 
of candid investigation. Not only have the most eminent statesmen dif- 
fered on the question, but the same individuals have at different times 
opposed and supported the measure. Not only so ; political parties as 
such, have changed sides on the question, as will be seen in the course 
of our history. 

The slightest notice, in this work, of all the arguments that have been 
adduced for and against a national bank, is impossible. With a view to 
preparing the public judgment for a future decision of this question, 
such notice would be unnecessary, as the subject, probably, will not be 
again agitated. For, conceding a national bank, as a fiscal agent of the 
government, to have been convenient and useful, or even necessary, at 
the time of its establishment, and during the greater portion of the 
period of its existence ; its necessity at the present time, and under 
existing circumstances, will not be affirmed ; and no party will be likely 
to hazard its fortunes by the revival of a question which has more than 



. NATIONAL BANK, 89 

once largely coutributed to the defeat of one of the great political parties. 
Yet, as it has several times constituted one of the main issues which 
have divided the great parties of this country, it deserves consideration. 

The report of the secretary was elaborate, embracing a great variety 
of argument. In favor of banks generally, it stated, that they had ex- 
isted among the principal and most enlightened commercial nations, and 
their utility had been tested by an experience of centuries. They had 
given aid to trade and industry, and, in certain emergencies, to the gov- 
ernment itself. Among the advantages of a bank were mentioned the 
following : First, the augmentation of the active or productive capital 
of a country. Secondly, the greater facility which it affords to the gov- 
ernment in obtaining pecuniary aids, especially in sudden emergencies. 
Thirdly, the facilitating of the payment of duties ; as was proved by the 
accommodations afforded by banks to those who resided near them, in 
the payment of duties. The report alluded to the bank of North Amer- 
ica, in the city of Philadelphia, incorporated by the old congress, in 
1781, and to the aid it afforded the United States during the remaining 
period of the war, and since the peace. Its capital, however, was now 
too small for the wants of the government, and it had become a state 
institution, under a charter from the state of Pennsylvania. The report 
also gave the plan of a bank, with such restrictions and safeguards as 
were deemed requisite. 

The bill came to the house from the senate, and received no opposi- 
tion until after its third reading. An effort was made for its recommit- 
ment, and lost. The question being on its final passage, Mr. Madison, 
one of the leading opponents of the bill, opened the debate in a very able 
speech. He admitted some of the advantages of banks. They were, 
(1.) The aid they afforded merchants in extending their mercantile ope- 
rations with the same capital. (2.) The aids to merchants in paying 
punctually the customs. (3.) Aids to the government in complying 
punctually with its engagements when deficiencies or delays happen in 
the revenue. (4.) Diminishing usury. (5.) Saving the wear of gold and 
silver kept in the vaults, and represented by notes. (6.) Facilitating 
occasional remittances from different places where notes happen to cir- 
culate. 

The principal disadvantages of banks consisted in, (1.) Banishing the 
precious metals by substituting another medium to perform their office. 
(2.) Exposing the public and individuals to the evils of a run on the 
bank, which might happen from various causes, as false rumors, bad man- 
agement of the institution, an unfiivorable balance of trade, &c. He 
thought the most important advantages of banks could be better obtained 
from several banks, properly distributed; as aids to commerce could 
only be afforded near the seat of banks. 



90 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The main objection to the bill, however, was founded on its unconsti- 
tionality. Mr. Madison said ; a power to grant charters of incorpora- 
tion had been proposed in the general convention, and rejected. He 
denied that the power claimed was implied in the " power to pass all 
laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the foregoing powers." 
The meaning of this clause must be limited to means necessary to the 
end, and incident to the nature of the specified powers. The clause 
merely declares what would have resulted by unavoidable implication as 
the appropriate, and, as it were, technical means of executing those pow- 
ers. A bank might be useful and convenient for collecting taxes, bor- 
rowing money, paying debts, and providing for the general welfare ; but 
it was not absolutely necessary. 

Others, however, did not admit the advantages of a bank to the same 
extent as Mr. Madison. The facility of borrowing from it would involve 
the union in irretrievable debts. State banks, it was contended, could 
render the desired aids to better effect than a single bank like that con- 
templated ; and the latter would swallow up the former. They opposed 
the loose construction of the words "necessary and proper." A " neces- 
sary means to produce a given end, was the means without which the 
end could not he produced^ 

The advocates of the measure relied upon experience and the testimony 
of the commercial world, to settle the question as to the utility of such 
an institution. The new capital would invigorate trade and manufac- 
tures with new energy. It would furnish a medium for the collection 
of the revenues ; and if government should be pressed by a sudden ne- 
cessity, it would afford seasonable and effectual aid, It was admitted 
that congress could exercise those powers only which were granted by 
the constitution ; but incidental as well as express powers belonged to 
every government. When power is given to effect particular objects, all 
the known and usual means of effecting them pass as incidental to such 
power. A bank was a known and usual means of carrying into effect 
several of the powers granted to the government. Most of the laws 
enacted under the new constitution, had been enacted by the authority 
of implied powers. Laws had been made to tax sliips, erect light-houses, 
govern seamen, &c., under the power to regulate commerce. A majority 
of the laws enacted under the new constitution, had been made by 
authority of powers incidental to, or implied in, powers expressly dele- 
gated. 

The discussion continued, with little intermission, from the 1st to the 
9th of February, when the bill passed, 39 to 20. All who voted in the 
negative, except one, were from the states of Maryland, Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. All who were present from the 



INCORPORATION OF A NATIONAL BANK. 91 

other states, except one from Massachusetts, voted in the affirmative ; to- 
gether with two from Maryland, two from North Carolina, and one from 
South Carolina. 

The president, before signing the bill, required the written opinions 
of the members of his cabinet as to its constitutionality. The secretaries 
of the treasury and of war, (Hamilton and Knox,) affirmed the bill to be 
constitutional ; the secretary of state and the attorney-general, (Jefferson 
and Randolph,) expressed the contrary opinion. After mature deliber- 
ation, the president signed the bill. 

The capital stock of the bank was limited to 110,000,000; $2,000,000 
to be subscribed for the benefit of the United States, the residue by indi- 
viduals ; the whole to be divided into 25,000 shares, of ^400 each ; and 
no person, copartnership, or corporation, to subscribe for more than 1000 
shares. One-fourth of the sum subscribed, was to be payable in gold 
and silver, and three-fourths in public debt ; one-fourth to be paid on 
subscribing, and the remainder in three instalments, semi-annually. The 
corporation was not to own property, including its capital, to a greater 
amount than $15,000,000; nor were its debts, exclusive of deposits, to 
exceed $10,000,000. It might sell any part of the public debt compos- 
ing its stock, but not purchase any public debt, nor trade in anything 
except bills of exchange, and gold and silver bullion, nor take a higher 
rate of interest than six per cent. It was to be a bank of deposit and 
discount ; and its bills were to be payable in specie, and receivable in all 
payments to the United States. No loan was to be made to the United 
States exceeding $100,000; nor to any particular state exceeding 
$50,000 ; nor to a foreign prince or state to any amount, unless pre- 
viously authorized by an act of congress. The bank was to be located 
at Philadelphia, with power in the directors to establish offices of dis- 
count and deposit only, wherever they should think fit, within the United 
States. The charter was to continue twenty years ; and no other bank 
was to be established by congress within that period. 

The inconveniences arising from the disordered state of the currency, 
demanded some measure of relief. The balance of trade having always 
been against the colonies, coin had flowed towards England. This had 
induced the issue, in some colonies, of government bills, or treasury 
notes, which were sometimes made a legal tender in payment of debts. In 
others, they were loaned on interest, thus furnishing a source of revenue 
to the government, and serving as a medium of trade. These paper 
issues were carried to such an extreme, that parliament had found it 
necessary to restrict them. During the war, all restraint being removed 
and necessity impelling to the measure, paper money was issued more 
profusely than ever before ; so that both continental and state bills bo- 



92 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

came almost worthless, and ceased to circulate. Such was the deprecia- 
tion of the former in the hands of the holders, that a debt of two hun- 
dred millions of dollars had been reduced by an act of congress to five 
millions, being at the rate of forty for one. And nearly eighty millions 
yet outstanding, were, as has been stated, funded at the rate of one hun- 
dred for one. [Appendix, Note A.] 

Sensible relief had been afforded, near the close of the war, by the 
bank of North America, as has been observed. This institution was ori- 
ginated by Robert Morris, at that time superintendent of the continental 
finances, and was designed to aid him in the duties of his office. It was 
the first institution in this country which issued bills of credit payable 
in cash. The advantages of this redeemable currency, not only to the 
government, but to trade in general, led to the establishment of a similar 
bank at New York, and another at Boston, and subsequently the 
national bank just described. No others were at that time in existence 
in the United States. The constitutional power of the old congress to 
charter a bank having been questioned, a new charter was obtained from 
the state of Pennsylvania ; after which its connection with the national 
government ceased. Hence, to furnish the government with an institu- 
tion then deemed necessary as a fiscal agent, and at the same time to 
increase the amount of banking capital to meet the increased demands 
of trade, the new bank was established. 

A law was passed at this session, admitting the new state of Kentucky, 
formed from Virginia, into the union ; the admission to take place the 
1st of June following, (1792.) Vermont also was admitted, to come 
into the union on the termination of the present session of congress. 

The second congress met on the 24th of October, 1791. The condi- 
tion of the country at this time, presented a marked contrast with that 
in which it had been found by the first congress. The president, in his 
speech at the opening of the session, thus congratulated congress on the 
improved situation of the country : 

" Your own observation in your respective districts, will have satisfied 
you of the progressive state of agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and 
navigation. In tracing its causes, you will have remarked with particu- 
lar pleasure, the happy effects of that revival of confidence, public as 
well as private, to which the constitution and laws of the United States 
so obviously contributed. And you will have observed, with no less 
interest, new and decisive proofs of the increasing reputation and credit 
of the nation." The readiness with which the stock of the bank had 
been taken, he mentioned as " among the striking and pleasing evidences, 
not only of confidence in the government, but of resources in the com- 
munity.' 



APPORTIONMENT BILL. 



Among tlie subjects to which the president called the attention of con- 
gress, was the hostility of the north-western Indians, whose depredations 
on the frontiers had made it necessary to send an expedition against 
them, and with whom farther hostilities were anticipated. Witli some 
of the tribes provisional treaties had been negotiated ; to others, over 
tures"of peace were still continued. He also suggested a modification of 
the act laying duties on distilled spirits, which had caused, in some 
places, considerable discontent. 

Of the members of the former house, about one-third had been reelected. 
Although the administration majority had been somewhat reduced, it wag 
yet considerable ; and, as before, the opposition members were principally 
from the five southern-most states. In the senate, a still larger propor- 
tional majority were supporters of the administration. 

The apportionment of representatives, according to the census of 1790, 
was made at this session of congress. In order to obtain the largest possi- 
ble number of representatives, it was determined to adopt the lowest ratio 
allowed by the constitution. A bill was passed by the house, and sent 
to the senate, where it was amended by making the apportionment con- 
formable to a ratio of 33,000. The house disagreeing to the amend- 
ment, the bill was lost. A second bill, based on a ratio of 30,000, was, 
after much disagreement, passed by both houses. By this bill, the whole 
representative population of the United States was divided by the ratio, 
and the number thus obtained was to be the whole number of represen- 
tatives, to be apportioned among the several states. But as there would 
remain in each state a fraction of the population unrepresented ; and as 
these fractional numbers of the several states amounted in the aggregate 
to a population entitled to several representatives, these representatives 
were apportioned to those states having the largest fractions. 

This bill was negatived by the president as unconstitutional, for the 
reason that those states to which a representative was given for their 
fractional numbers, had more than one representative for every 30,000 
inhabitants. According to the president's construction of the constitu- 
tion [Art. I, see. 2, clause 3,] each state was restricted to a representative 
for every 30,000 inhabitants ; consequently the fractional number could 
have no representative; and the aggregate number of representatives 
composing the house must be less than the number obtained by dividing 
the whole population of all the states by the ratio. The president con- 
sulted his cabinet on the question, who were equally divided, as on the 
question of the bank. In the present case, however, he concurred in the 
opinions of Jefi"erson and Randolph. 

A third bill was then introduced, fixing the ratio at 33,000, and appor- 
tioning the representatives in conformity with the views of the president> 



34 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

and was passed without much opposition. It gave a house of 105 
members. 

Intelligence of the defeat of the American army under Gen. St. Clair, 
by the Western Indians, near the Ohio river, which had occurred in 
November, was received by the president in December, and communi- 
cated to congress. In accordance with a report of the secretary of <var, 
a bill, providing for the prosecution of the war, and proposing to raise an 
additional military force, was introduced into the house of representa- 
tives, and passed, though not without a vigorous opposition. It was 
argued that the war was unjust ; the hostility of the Indians having 
been instigated by the British, who were still permitted to occupy the 
western posts, and by the citizens of the United States having tran- 
scended their proper boundaries. Let these causes be removed, and 
hostilities would cease. Not the least objection to the war was the addi- 
tional draft upon the treasury, and the consequent increase of taxes which 
it would occasion. A prosecution of the war was said to be unnecessary. 
Peace could be obtained in some other way, and at much less expense. 
But, conceding its necessity, the force which had been already authorized, 
would, when raised, be sufficient without the additional regiments pro- 
posed by the bill. 

On the other side it was alleged, that the war had been undertaken 
simply to defend our citizens on the frontiers. Since 1783, more than 
two thousand persons had been massacred or carried into captivity. 
Treaties of peace had been proposed, but the Indians had refused to treat. 
Nor could they be pacified by repurchasing their lands. War would 
again break out, and force must at last be employed to obtain a per- 
manent peace. Averse as the people were to taxes, they would regard 
money as of little value in comparison with the lives of their fellow- 
citizens. And it would be more economical, by a competent force, at 
once to terminate the contest, than to protract hostilities by a weaker 
army. 

Gen. St. Clair having resigned the command of the army, Gen. Wayne 
was appointed to succeed him. The final defeat of the Indians did not 
take place until nearly two years after. 

The secretary of the treasury having been called on by the house to 
report the ways and means of meeting the additional demands upon the 
treasury which would be occasioned by the war, recommended an in- 
crease of duties ; and a new tariff act, conforming in most of its details, 
to the secretary's report, was passed. By this act, a discrimination was 
made in favor of certain articles with a view to the encouragement of 
American industry. The excise act being unpopular in some sections of 
the union, the duty on domestic spirits was somewhat diminished, and 
"ncreased on those imported. 



OPPOSITION TO Washington's administration. 95 

Laws were also passed at this session for the encouragement of fishing, 
by granting bounties to the owners of fishing vessels and to the fisher- 
men ; for providing more efiectually for the public defense, by establish- 
ing a uniform militia system ; for authorizing the president, in case of 
invasion or insurrection, to call forth the militia ; for establishing a 
ooiint and regulating the coinage ; for reorganizing the post-office ; for 
regulating the election of president and vice-president, and for declaring 
what officer shall act as president in case of vacancy in the offices of pre- 
sident and vice-president. 

On the 8th of May, congress adjourned to the first Monday of 
November. 



CHAPTER VII. 

opposition to Washington's administration. — differences between 

secretaries JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. WHISKY INSURRECTION. 

FUGITIVE LAW. CONSTITUTION AMENDED. 

The ground of controversy between the two parties had now become 
essentially changed. The constitution was rapidly increasing in the 
popular favor. The minority had withdrawn chiefly their opposition 
from its original objects, and were now directing it against the adminis- 
tration. Unwilling longer to bear a name which implied hostility to the 
constitution, they renounced the name of " anti-federalists," and assumed 
that of " republicans." Of this party, Mr. Jefferson had become the 
leader. Mr. Hamilton, the author of the leading measures of the admin- 
istration, was considered the head of the other. 

The asperity of the parties had been greatly sharpened by the personal 
enmity known to subsist between their respective leaders. This enmity 
has been attributed to several causes. These gentlemen differed widely 
in their views of government. Mr. Jefferson's regard for popular rights 
is well known. His jealousy of the encroachments of power was pei-haps 
indulged to an extreme. The correctness of the following portraiture 
of these two political champions, drawn by Hildreth, will probably be 
generally admitted. 

" Jefferson had returned from France, strengthened and confirmed by 
his residence and associations there, in those theoretical ideas of liberty 
and equality to which he had given utterance in the declaration of inde- 



96 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

pendence. During his residence in Europe, as well as pending the 
revolutionary struggle, his attention seems to have been almost escl* 
sively directed toward abuses of power. Hence his political philosophy 
was almost entirely negative — its sum total seeming to be the reduction 
of the exercise of authority within the narrowest possible limits, eA^en at 
the risk of depriving government of its ability for good as well as for 
evil ; a theory extremely well suited to place him at the head of those 
who, for various reasons, wished to restrict, as far as might be, the 
authority of the new federal government. 

" Though himself separated from the mass of the people, by elegance 
of manners, refined taste, and especially by philosophical opinions on the 
subject of religion, in political affairs Jefferson was disposed to allow a 
controlling, indeed absolute authority to the popular judgment. The 
many he thought to be always more honest and disinterested, and in, 
questions where the public interests were concerned, more wise than the 
few, who might always be suspected of having private purposes to serve. 
Hence he was ever ready to allow even his most cherished principles to 
drop into silence tho' moment he found them in conflict with the popular 
current. To sympathize with popular passions, seemed to be his test of 
patriotism ; to sail before the wind as a popular favorite, the great 
object of his ambition ; and it was under the character of a condescend- 
ing friend of the people that he rose first at the head of a party, and then 
the chief magistrate of the nation." 

" Much less of a scholar or a speculatist than eitAier Jefferson or Adams, 
but a sagacious observer of mankind, and possessed of practical talents 
of the highest order, Hamilton's theory of government seems to have 
been almost entirely founded on what had passed under his own observa- 
tion during the war of the revolution, and subsequently, previous to thf 
adoption of the new constitution. As Washington's ccnSuential aid-de- 
camp, and as a member of the continental congress, after the peace, he 
had become very strongly impressed with the impossibility of providing for 
the public good, especially in times of war and danger, except by a gov- 
ernment vested with ample powers, and possessing means for putting 
those powers into vigorous exercise. To give due strength to a govern- 
ment, it was necessary, in his opinion, not only to invest it on paper with 
sufficient legal authority, but to attach the most wealthy and influential 
part of the community to it by the ties of personal and pecuniary advan- 
tage; for, though himself remarkably disinterested, acting under the exalted 
sense of personal honor and patriotic duty, Hamilton was inclined, like 
many other men in the world, to ascribe to motives of pecuniary and 
personal interest a somewhat greater influence than they actually possess. 
Having but little confidence either in the virtue or tho judgment of the 



DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. 97 

mass of mankind, he thought the administration of affairs most safe in 
the hands of a select few. Nor in private conversation did he disguise 
his opinion that, to save her liberties from attack or intestine commo- 
tions, America might yet be driven into serious alterations of her consti- 
tution, giving to it more of a monarchical and aristocratical cast. He had 
the sagacity to perceive, what subsequent experience has abundantly con- 
firmed, that the union had rather to dread resistance of the states to 
federal power, than executive usurpation ; but he was certainly mistaken 
in supposing that a president and senate for life, or good behavior, such 
as he had suggested in the federal convention, could have given any addi- 
tional strength to the government. That strength, under all elective 
systems, must depend on public confidence ; and public confidence is best 
tested and secured by frequent appeals to the popular vote." 

Admitting these gentlemen to have possessed an ordinary share of 
human fallibility, a material cause of their mutual hatred might be 
found in their political rivalry. Identified with those measures which 
had contributed so largely to the popularity of the administration, Ham- 
ilton was regarded with jealousy by other aspirants. Hence the dispo- 
sition to disparage these measures, and to asperse their supporters. The 
funding system, the assumption of the state debts, the excise, and the 
national bank, were denounced as corrupt attempts to gain friends to 
their author, and as intended to pave the way toward an aristocracy and a 
monarchy. And, as is too often the case in warm political controversies, 
the most patriotic supporters of the administration were accused of 
having been drawn into the interests of the secretary, by the hope of a 
participation in the profits of the trade in the public stocks created by 
his policy. Newspapers enlisted in the contest, and increased the viru- 
lence of parties. At the seat of government (Philadelphia) was Fenno's 
United States Gazette, the special organ of the secretary of the treasury 
and his friends. The National Gazette was the medium selected by the 
opposition, or rather had been established for this purpose, and, as was 
alleged, under the auspices of the secretary of state ; its editor, Philip 
Freneau, a Frenchman, having about the same time been appointed 
translating clerk in the state department. 

The disagreement between the heads of the state and treasury depart- 
ments had acquired such magnitude, and had so great an influence in 
widening the division of parties, as to deserve notice in this place. 

Gen. Washington, having intimated an intention not to be a candidate 
for reelection, was urged by numerous friends to consent to serve a 
second term. Having, after the close of the session of congress, retired 
to Mt. Vernon, for temporary relief from the cares of public business, 
Mr. Jefferson addressed him a letter, soliciting him to relinquish his 



98 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

iutention to retire ; assigning as a reason the divided state of the public 
mind in relation to the policy of his administration. The letter mentions 
several causes of dissatisfaction among the people. The public debt was 
alleged to be greater than was necessary, a part of it having been " arti- 
ficially created," in consequence of which " we have been already obliged," 
he said, " to strain the impost till it produces clamor, and will produce 
evasion, and war on our citizens to collect it, and even to resort to an 
excise law, of odious character with the people, partial in its operation, 
and unproductive, unless enforced by arbitrary and vexatious means." 

The people complained also that so much of the public debt had 
" been made irredeemable, but in small portions, and in long terms." 
But for this, it might be paid in two-thirds of the time. " This irre- 
deemable quality was given to it for the avowed purpose of inviting its 
transfer to foreign countries," whither three millions of dollars of coin 
must be annually transported to pay interest. " They think that the 
ten or twelve per cent, annual profits paid to the lenders of this paper 
medium, are taken out of the pockets of the people, who would have had 
without interest the coin it is banishing ; that all the capital employed 
in paper speculation is barren and useless, and is withdrawn from com- 
merce and agriculture, where it would have produced an addition to the 
common mass ; that it nourishes in our citizens habits of vice and idle- 
ness, instead of industry and morality ; that it has furnished efiectual 
means of corrupting such a portion of the legislature as turns the balance 
between the honest voters, whichever way it is directed ; that this corrupt 
squadron deciding the voice of the legislature, have manifested their dis- 
position to get rid of the limitations imposed by the constitution on the 
general legislature, limitations on the faith of which the states acceded 
to that instrument ; that the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the 
way for a change from the present republican form of government to 
that of a monarchy, of which the English constitution is to be the 
model. 

" Of all the mischiefs objected to the system of measures before men- 
tioned, none is so afflicting and fatal to every honest hope, as the corrup- 
tion of the legislature. As it was the earliest of these measures, it 
became the instrument for producing the rest, and will be the instrument 
for producing in future a king, lords, and commons, or whatever else 
those who direct it may choose. 

" The only hope of safety hangs now on the numerous representation 
which is to come forward the ensuing year. Some of the new members 
will probably be either in principle or interest with the present majority. 
But it is expected that the great mass will form an accession to the 
republican party. * • • But should the majority of the new mem- 



DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON, 99 

bers be still in the same principles with the present, and show that wc 
have nothing to expect but a continuance of the same practices, it is not 
easy to conjecture what would be the result, nor what means would be 
resorted to for a correction of the evil. True wisdom would direct that 
they should be temperate and peaceable. But the division of sentiment 
and interest happens unfortunately to be so geographical, that no mortal 
can say that what is most wise and temperate would prevail against what 
is more easy and obvious. 

" I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the break- 
ing of the union into two or more parts. Yet when we review the mass 
that opposed the original coalescence ; when we consider that it lay 
chiefly in the southern quarter ; that the legislature have availed them- 
selves of no occasion of allaying it, but, on the contrary, whenever northern 
or southern prejudices have come in conflict, the latter have been sacri- 
ficed and the former soothed ; that the owners of the debt are in the 
southern, and the holders of it in the northern division ; that the anti- 
federal champions are now strengthened in argument by the fulfillment 
of their predictions ; that this has been brought about by the monarchi- 
cal federalists themselves, who, having been for the new government 
merely as a stepping-stone to monarchy, have themselves adopted the 
very constructions of the constitution, of which, when advocating it 
before the people, they declared it insusceptible ; that the republican 
federalists, who espoused the same government from its intrinsic merits, 
are disarmed of their weapons — that which they denied as prophecy hav- 
ing become true as history — who can be sure that these things may not 
proselyte the small number which was wanting to place the majority on 
the other side ? And this is the event at which I tremble, and to pre- 
vent which I consider your continuance at the head of affairs as of the 
last importance." 

The opponents of Mr. Jefferson regarded this letter as designed to 
influence the mind of Washington against the original friends of the 
constitution, who were now generally the supporters of the administra- 
tion. Whatever were the motives which dictated it, it failed to effect 
the object imputed to the writer, as is evident from a subsequent conver- 
sation with Washington, as related by Mr. Jefferson himself He repre- 
sents Waohington as having said, " that, with respect to the existing causes 
of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party 
which had been carried a great deal too far. There might be desires, 
but he did not believe there were designs, to change the form of govern- 
ment into a monarchy. There might be a few who wished it in the 
higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but the main body 
of the people in the eastern states were as steady for republicanism as in 



IQO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tlie southern. Pieces lately published, and particularly in Frcneau's 
paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government, 
and this had already taken place in Pennsylvania as to the excise law. 
These pieces tended to produce a separation of the union, the most 
dreadful of all calamities: and whatever tended to produce anarchy, 
tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government. He 
considered these papers as attacking him directly, for he must be fool 
indeed to swallow the little sugar-plums here and there thrown out to 
him. In condemning the administration of the government, they con- 
demned him ; for if they thought that measures-were pursued contrary to 
his judgment, they must consider him too careless to attend to, or too 
stupid to understand them. He had, indeed, signed many acts which he 
did not approve in all their parts, but he had never put his name to one 
which he did not think eligible on the whole. 

" As to the bank which had been the subject of so much complaint, 
until there was some infallible criterion of reason, differences of opinion 
must be tolerated. He did not believe that the discontent extended far 
from the seat of government. He had seen and spoken with many in 
Maryland and Virginia during his last journey, and had found the 
people contented and happy. He defended the assumption of the state 
debts on the ground that it had not increased the total amount to be 
paid. All of it was honest debt, and, whether paid by the states indi- 
vidually, or by the union, it was still alike a burden on the people. The 
excise he defended as one of the best laws that could be passed, nobody 
being obliged to pay who did not elect to do so." 

Mr. Hamilton, who also urged Washington not to decline, wrote to 
him while on a subsequent visit to Mt. Vernon, as follows : " It is 
clear, says every one with whom I have conversed, that the affairs of 
the national government are not yet firmly established ; that its enemies, 
generally speaking, are as inveterate as ever; that their enmity has been 
sharpened by its success, and by all the resentments which flow from 
disappointed predictions and mortified vanity ; that a general and stren- 
uous effort is making in every state to place the administration of it into 
the hands of its enemies, as if they were its safest guardians ; that the 
period of the next house of representatives is to prove the crisis of its per- 
manent character ; that if jou continue in office, nothing materially mis- 
chievous is to be apprehended ; if you quit, much is to be dreaded ; that 
the same motives which induced you to accept originally, ought to induce 
you to continue till matters have assumed a m jre determinate aspect ; 
that, indeed, it would have been better for your own character that you 
had never consented to come forward, than now to leave the business un- 
finished, and in danger of being undone that, in the event of storms 



DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. 101 

arising, there would be an imputation either of a want of foresight, or 
a want of firmness ; and in fine, that on public and personal accounts, on 
patriotic and prudential considerations, the clear path to be pursued by 
you will be again to obey the voice of your country, which, it is not 
doubted, will be as earnest and unanimous as ever." 

Mr. Randolph, the attorney-general, who also wrote to the president 
on the same subject, seems not to have taken a side with either party. 
He says : " It can not have escaped you, that divisions are formed in our 
politics as systematic as those which prevail in Great Britain. Such as 
opposed the constitution from a hatred to the union, can never be con- 
ciliated by any overture or atonement. By others it is meditated to 
push the construction of the federal powers to every tenable extreme. 
A third class, republican in principle, and thus far, in my judgment, 
happy in their discernment of our welfare, have, notwithstanding, 
mingled with their doctrines a fatal error, that the state assemblies are 
to be resorted to as the engines of correction to the federal administra- 
tion. The honors belonging to the chief magistracy, are objects of no 
common solicitude to a few who compose a fourth denomination." After 
speaking of the tendency of these divisions, he says : "In this threaten- 
ing posture of affairs, we must gain time, for the purpose of attracting 
confidence to the government, by an experience of its benefits, and that 
name alone, whose patronage secured the adoption of the constitution, 
can cheek the assaults which it will sustain at the two next sessions of 
congress." 

About this time, a personal newspaper controversy occurred, in which 
the resentments of the parties were freely uttered. The freq[uent attacks 
in Freneau's paper upon the financial measures of the administration, 
at length drew from Mr. Hamilton a severe newspaper article, signed 
" An American," in which he represented that paper as having been 
established under the auspices and for the special use of the ^cretary 
of state, and charged him with the impropriety of holding office in the 
administration, while conducting a warfare against measures which had 
received the approval of both branches of the legislature and of the exe- 
cutive. Freneau, in reply, denied Mr. JeS'erson's having been concerned 
in the establishment or conduct of the paper, or his having even written 
for it. Several articles followed on both sides before this newspaper war 
terminated. 

Washington, pained at this quarrel between his secretaries, endeavored, 
though in vain, to effect a reconciliation. In a letter of the 23d of 
August, addressed to the secretary of st'^te, he wrote thus : " How un^ 
fortunate and how much is it to be regretted, then, that while we are 
encompassed on all sides with avowed enemies and insidious friends,' 



T02 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

(alluding to alleged British and Spanish intrigues with the Indians,) 
" internal dissensions should be harrowing and tearing out our vitals. 
The last, to me, is the most serious, the most alarming, and the most 
afflicting of the two ; and without more charity for the opinions of one 
another in governmental matters, or some more infallible criterion than 
has yet fallen to the lot of humanity, by which the truth of speculative 
opinions, before they have undergone the test of experience, is to be fore- 
judged, I believe it will be difficult, if not impracticable, to keep the 
parts of it together ; for if, instead of laying our shoulders to the 
machine after measures are decided on, one pulls this way and another 
that, before the utility of the thing is fairly tried, it must inevitably be 
torn asunder ; and, in my opinion, the fairest prospect of happiness and 
prosperity that ever was presented to man, will be lost perhaps for ever. 

" My earnest wish, and my fondest hope, therefore, is, that instead of 
wounding suspicions and irritating charges, there may be liberal allow- 
ances, mutual forbearances, and temporizing yielding on all sides. 
Under the exercise of these, matters will go on smoothly, and, if possible, 
more prosperously. Without them, every thing must rub ; the wheels 
of government must clog ; our enemies will triumph, and, by throwing 
their weight into the disaffected scale, may accomplish the ruin of the 
goodly fabric we have been erecting. 

" I do not mean to apply this advice or these observations to any par- 
ticular person or character. I have given them in the same general 
terms to other officers of the government, because the disagreements 
which have arisen from difference of opinions, and the attacks which 
have been made upon almost all the measures of government, and 
most of its executive officers, have for a long time past filled me with 
painful sensations, and can not fail, I think, of producing unhappy con- 
sequences at home and abroad." 

A similar letter to Hamilton, and another to Jefferson were sub- 
sequently written. In the last he says : " I will solemnly and frankly 
declare, that I believe the views of both to be pure and well meant, and 
that experience only will decide with respect to the salubrity of the 
measures which are the subjects of this dispute. * * * I have a great, 
a sincere esteem and regard for you both ; and ardently wish that some 
line could be marked out by which both of you could walk." 

To these letters of the president, answers in justification of their 
conduct were returned by both of the secretaries. The character of 
these answers will be seen from the following extracts. 

" It is my most anxious wish," said Hamilton, " as far as may depend 
upon me, to smooth the path of your administration, and to render it 
prosperous and happy. And if any prospect shall open of healing or 



DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. 103 

terminating the diiFerences which exist, I shall most cheerfully embrace 
it, though I consider myself as the deeply injured party. The recom- 
mendation of such a spirit is worthy of the moderation and wisdom 
which dictated it ; and if your endeavors should prove unsuccessful, I 
do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, the period is not remote when 
the public good will require substitutes for the differing members of your 
administration. The continuance of a division there must destroy the 
energy of government, which will he little enough with the strictest 
union. On my part, there will be a most cheerful acquiescence in such 
a result. * * * I can not conceal from you, that I have had some instru- 
mentality of late in the retaliations which have fallen upon certain public 
sharacters, and that I find myself placed in a situation not to be able to 
recede for the present. 

" I considered myself compelled to this conduct by reasons public as 
well as personal, of the most cogent nature. I know that I have been 
an object of uniform opposition from Mr. Jefferson from the moment of 
his coming to New York to enter on his present office. I know from the 
most authentic sources, that I have been the frequent subject of the most 
unkind whispers and insinuations from the same quarter. I have long 
seen a formed party in the legislature, under his auspices, bent upon my 
subversion. I can not doubt, from the evidence I possess, that the 
National Gazette was instituted by him for political purposes, and that 
one leading object of it has been to render me and all the leading meas- 
ures connected with my department, as odious as possible. 

" As long as I saw no danger to the government from the machina- 
tions that were going on, I resolved to be a silent sufferer of the injuries 
that were done me. * * * But when I no longer doubted that there was 
a formed party deliberately bent upon a subversion of the measures 
which, in its consequence, would subvert the government ; when I saw 
that the undoing of the funding system in particular was an avowed 
object of the party, which, whatever may be the original merits of that 
system, would prostrate the credit and honor of the nation, and bring 
the government into contempt with that description of men who are in 
every society the only firm supporters of government, and that all possi- 
ble pains were taking to produce that effect, by rendering the funding 
system odious to the body of the people ; I considered it as a duty to 
endeavor to resist the torrent, and as an effectual means to that end, to 
draw aside the veil from the principal actors. To this strong impulse, to 
this decided conviction, I have yielded ; and I think events will prove 
that I have judged rightly. Nevertheless, I pledge my honor to you, 
air, that if you shall hereafter form a plan to reunite the members of 
your administration upon some steady principle of cooperation, I will 



104 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

faithfully concur in executing it during my continuaiice in office ; and I 
will not, directly or indirectly, say or do a thing that will endanger a 
feud." 

Jefferson, in his letter, says : " When I embarked in the government^ 
it was with a determination to intermeddle not at all with the legislature, 
and as little as possible with the co-departments. * * * If it has been 
supposed that I have ever intrigued among the members of the legisla- 
ture to defeat the plans of the secrei,ary of the treasury, it is contrary 
to all truth. That I have utterly, in my private conversations, disap- 
proved of his system, I acknowledge and avow : and this was not merely 
a speculative difference. His system flowed from principles adverse to 
liberty, and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic, by 
creating an influence in his department over the members of the legisla- 
ture. I saw this influence actually produced, and its first fruits to be 
the establishment of the great outlines of his project by the votes of the 
very persons who, having swallowed his bait, were laying themselves out 
to profit by his plans ; and that, had these persons withdrawn, as those 
interested in a question ever should, the vote of the disinterested majority 
was clearly the reverse of what they made it. These were no longer, 
then, the votes of the representatives of the people, but of deserters 
from the rights and interests of the people ; and it was impossible to 
consi<ler their decision, which had nothing in view but to enrich them- 
selves, as the measures of the fair majority, which ought always to be re- 
spec led. 

" If what was actually done begat uneasiness in those who wished for 
virtuous government, what was farther proposed was not less threatening 
to the friends of the constitution. For, in a report on the subject of 
manufactures, (still to be acted on,) it was expressly assumed, that the 
general government has a right to exercise all powers which may be for 
the general welfare ; that is to say, all the legitimate powers of govern- 
ment, since no government has a right to do what is not for the welfare 
of the governed. There was, indeed, a sham limitation of the universal- 
ity of this power to cases where money is to be employed. But about 
what is it that money can not be employed ? Thus the object of these 
plans, taken together, is to draw all the powers of government' into the 
hands of the general legislature, to establish means of corrupting a 
sufficient corps in that legislature to divide the honest votes, and prepon- 
derate by their own the scale which suited, and to have that corps under 
the command of the secretary of the treasury, for the purpose of sub- 
verting, step by step, the principles of the constitution, which he has so 
rften declared a thing of nothing, which must be changed." 

The reason assigned by the secretary of state for his patronizing the 



DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. 105 

National Grazette, was a desire to present to the public European intelli- 
gence taken from the Leyden Gazette, ingtead of the English papers, 
the latter being considered as not giving a correct view of foreign affairs, 
especially of those of France, where the revolution was then in progress. 
He disclaimed having written or dictated any thing unofficial to be in- 
serted in Freneau's paper. He had simply furnished the editor with 
the Leyden Gazette, and requested him to translate and publish articles 
from the same. Any recommendations which he might have given the 
paper, had no respect to its opposition to the measures of the govern- 
ment, but to the ground it took against the aristocratical and monarchical 
doctrines of writers in other papers. 

We have devoted considerable space to this cabinet controversy, which 
occurred in an important period of the history of our government, and 
which, from its influence upon the future politics of the nation, has not 
yet become devoid of interest. Although the parties of that day have 
long ago ceased to exist, public sentiment in regard to the early policy 
of the government is still to some extent divided ; and the two original 
leaders of those parties have yet their admirers. Of their relative mer- 
its or demerits, it is hardly safe at this remote period to express an 
opinion. To both must be conceded a large measure of patriotism, and 
the honor of having rendered important public services. As is usual in 
times of political excitement, the characters, private and official, of both, 
were often unjustly assailed, and their public acts, as well as the motives 
that prompted them, misjudged. Not only the r ^wspapers, but pamph- 
lets almost without number, many of which are yet extant, were employed 
in this party war. Abounding with the most fulsome praise on one side, 
and malicious disparagement on the other, they are unreliable sources of 
information, and serve little purpose other than to show the character of 
the warfare which they were instrumental in promoting. 

We can not be persuaded to believe the existence of the alleged con- 
spiracy against republican liberty, or of the corruption or subserviency 
of a majority of both houses of the legislature ; yet it is not incredible 
that a man so extremely jealous of encroachments upon popular rights 
as Mr. Jefferson, should indulge in unjust suspicions toward a political 
rival and his supporters. We are equally slow to believe, that the bene- 
fits of Mr. Hamilton's financial policy were not in some measure over- 
rated. The general industry and the restoration of commerce, doubtless 
contributed much to raise the country from the depressed condition to 
which it had been reduced by the war. 

The act imposing a duty on distilled spirits, unacceptable in several 
parts of the union, was extremely obnoxious to the inhabitants of the 
western counties of Pennsylvania. Meetings in which some of the most 



106 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

influential citizens took a leading part, were held at Pittsburg and otter 
places ; and resolutions were adopted tending to increase the discontent, 
and encouraging resistance to the execution of the law. It was this 
organized opposition to the excise law that had induced congress, before 
its adjournment, to pass the act authorizing the president to call out the 
militia to aid in enforcing the laws. Various measures — as declaring 
infamous all excise collectors — threatening to destroy property and life, 
personal violence and the like — were resorted to in order to deter persons 
from assisting to execute the law. 

Reluctant to employ military force, the president issued a proclama- 
tion, exhorting all persons to desist from any proceedings tending to 
obstruct the execution of the laws, and requiring the aid of the magis- 
trates to bring the offenders to justice. But the proclamation was inef- 
fectual. Many of the magistrates, instead of aiding to maintain the 
laws, encouraged resistance to them. This spirit of rebellion found 
additional encouragement in the sympathies of a powerful political party 
which had arrayed itself against the administration, and which had 
labored to make this a special object of public odium. This opposition 
to the laws continued until the summer of 1794. Other means of 
securing obedience to the law having failed, and the insurrection having 
assumed an alarming aspect, a strong military force was raised, consisting 
of 15,000 men, and the insurrection quelled, almost without bloodshed. 

The presidential election which occurred this year, (1792,) resulted 
in the unanimous reek ^tion of Gen. Washington. Mr. Adams also was 
reelected vice-president, Iiaving received 77 votes, and George Clinton 
50, the latter being the candidate of the opposition party. Mr. Adams 
received all the votes of the five New England states, New Jersey, Dela- 
ware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, except one vote of 
Pennsylvania, given for Clinton, and one of South Carolina for Burr. 
Mr. Jefferson received the votes of the Kentucky electors. 

Congress assembled on the 5th of November. Among the subjects 
to which attention was called by the president, were the continued hos- 
tility of the Indians, and the increased opposition to the collection of 
the duty on distilled spirits. In relation to the public debt, he said : 
" I entertain a strong hope that the state of the national finances is now 
sufficiently matured to enable you to enter upon a systematic and effect- 
ual arrangement for the regular redemption and discharge of the public 
debt, according to the right which has been reserved to the government. 
No measure can be more desirable, whether viewed with an eye to its 
intrinsic importance, or to the general sentiments and wish of the nation." 

In answer to the president's speech, the two houses expressed their 
approval of the measures he had adopted, and of his determination to 



CHARGES MADE AGAINS.r SECRETARY HAMILTON. 107 

compel obedience to the laws ; and the house, whose attention particu- 
larly he had called to the subject of the public debt, responded favorably 
to the recommendation. But when a motion was made to enter upon 
that measure, and to call upon the secretary of the treasury to report a 
plan for that purpose, it met with a strong opposition. It was objected, 
that the house had not yet sufficient knowledge of the state of the 
finances. The proposed reference of the subject to the secretary of the 
treasury was most vigorously opposed ; but after several days' debate it 
was carried, 32 to 25. A plan was accordingly reported by the secre- 
tary, in which, anticipating an increase of expenditures on account of 
the Indian war, a slight addition to the revenue was proposed, by im- 
posing a tax on pleasure-horses or pleasure-carriages, at the option of 
congress. 

Several causes conspiring to produce delay, no definitive action was 
taken upon the subject at this session. One of these causes was an 
inquiry instituted by the house into the official conduct of the secretary 
of the treasury, who was suspected of corrupt transactions in the manage- 
ment of the finances. On motion of Mr. Giles, of Virginia, the presi- 
dent was called on for information in regard to the borrowing of certain 
moneys authorized by law, and the manner of their application. This 
call was promptly answered by the secretary. A second call was then 
moved for information respecting several other particulars not embraced 
in the first. In support of the call, Mr. Giles specified sundry unwar- 
rantable acts of the secretary, besides his failing to account for a million 
and a half of dollars. The motion was agreed to without debate. The 
report of the secretary in answer to the call was full, extending to every 
subject of inquiry ; and concluded as follows : " Thus have I not only 
furnished a just and affirmative view of the real situation of the public 
accounts, but have likewise shown, I trust, in a conspicuous manner, 
fallacies enough in the statements from which the inference of an unac- 
counted for balance is drawn, to evince that it is one tissue of error." 

The charge of an unaccounted for balance was abandoned, but Mr. 
Giles and his coadjutors, imagining the secretary's statements to afi"ord 
sufficient grounds for a vote of censure, drew up a series of resolutions, 
comprising no less than six distinct charges against the secretary. After 
a debate of several days, the criminating resolutions were all negatived. 
The highest number of votes for any one of them was fifteen, little 
more than half the strength of the party, and for the others, from seven 
to twelve votes. * 

An act was passed at this session to cai-ry into effect the provisions of 
the constitution for the surrender of fugitives from justice and from 
'abor. The act required the executive of a state in which a person 



108 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

charged with crime was found, on demand of the executive of the state 
from which he had fled, to deliver him up to be carried back for trial ; 
such demand to be accompanied by an indictment or affidavit charging 
the crime. Persons claimed as slaves, might be seized by the claimant, 
or his agent, and taken before a United States judge, or a state magis- 
trate, who, on satisfactory proof that the person seized was a slave, was 
required to give a warrant for his return. The supreme court of the 
United States having subsequently decided that congress could not im- 
pose duties upon state officers, magistrates were by law forbidden in 
many of the free states, to aid in carrying the act of congress into effect. 

At the session of the supreme court of the United States, in February, 
it was decided that a state was suable by a citizen of another state. A 
citizen of South Carolina had brought a suit against the state of Georgia. 
The process had been duly served upon the governor and the attorney- 
general of the state ; but the state made no defense, protesting that the 
court had no jurisdiction in the case. The question was argued by the 
attorney-general of the United States, who appeared for the plaintiff. 
The jurisdiction of the court was considered as clearly sustained by the 
constitution, which declares that the judicial power shall extend " to 
controversies between a state, and the citizen of another state." The 
states having been made liable, by this decision, to innumerable suits, 
alarm was taken, and at the next session of congress an amendment to 
the constitution, [being the 11th article of Amendments,] was proposed, 
which declares that "the judicial power of the United States shall not be 
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prose- 
cuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or 
by citizens or subjects of any foreign state ;" and the same was after- 
wards ratified by the states. 

With the 3d of March, 1793, closed the constitutional term of the 
second congress, and the first term of Washington's administration. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION. RELATIONS WITH FRANCE, PRO- 
CLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY. GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. POLICY 

OF GREAT BRITAIN. 

The second term of Washington's administration was scarcely less 
eventful than the first. The internal policy of the government had been, 
as we have seen, established against a powerful opposition. Scarcely had 



OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION. 109 

the ceremonies of tlie second inauguration closed, before it became neces- 
sary to lay the foundation of a foreign policy which was destined to en- 
counter an opposition no less vigorous and determined. 

The French revolution had commenced almost simultaneously with 
the organization of the government of the United States under the new 
constitution. Its progress was watched with interest by the American 
people, whose sympathies were very naturally, as well as very generally, 
enlisted in the cause of their old ally, by whose aid their own independ- 
ence had been achieved. Such, however, was the character of that revo- 
lution as to inspire strong doubts of the establishment of a permanent 
government. A new constitution had been adopted, to which the king 
had given his assent. The legislature consisted of a single body, called 
the " national assembly." The crown was to continue hereditary. 

Soon after, the king was suspected, though unjustly, as is supposed, of 
being confederate with the enemies of France. On the 10th of August, 
1792, the palace of the Tuilleries was stormed, and the royal government 
subverted. In the prisons of Paris were confined large numbers of 
nobles, ecclesiastics, and wealthy citizens, suspected of having favored 
the aristocratic party. The Jacobin demagogues, bent on their destruc- 
tion, caused the prisons to be burst open, and all the prisoners to be 
massacred. The number thus slain in two days, the 2d and 3d of Sep- 
tember, was estimated at five thousand. G-eneral La Fayette, whose de- 
struction was determined on, fled the country. He was arrested by the 
Austrians and conveyed to the prison of Olmutz, where he suffered a 
long and cruel confinement, until released through the interposition of 
the American government. 

The national assembly was dissolved, and a new assembly, called 
a " convention," was established, which met on the 24th of September, and 
by which the abolition of monarchy was decreed, and France declared a 
REPUBLIC. The king was afterwards brought before the bar of the con- 
vention for trial, without any previous intimation of the charges against 
him, and declared guilty of a conspiracy against the liberties of the 
nation. He was executed on the 21st of January, 1793. In October 
following, the queen also, after an imprisonment of three months in a 
dungeon, was tried for alleged crimes which were not substantiated, and 
publicly executed. 

Louis XVI was universally known as an amiable prince. His friend- 
ship during our own revolution had been appreciated by the American 
people ; and the president had but recently communicated to congress a 
letter from the king, announcing his assent to the representative govern- 
ment ; and the house had, with but two dissenting voices, congratulated 
the French people on this auspicious event. In view of these facts, in 



110 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

connection with the subsequent wanton sacrifice of the king — the char- 
acter of the revolutionists — their imperfect ideas of republican govern- 
ment — it would not have been strange if the people had indulged appre- 
hensions unfavorable to the establishment of a well regulated republican 
government, nor less strange still, if the horrid butcheries under the 
blood thirsty Robespierre and his coadjutors, the abjuration of the Chris- 
tian religion, and the abolition of the sabbath, had strengthened these 
apprehensions. 

The question as to the course to be pursued by the United States 
toward the new government of France, was to be settled. Of the right 
or propriety of recognizing it, there could hardly be a doubt. But a 
combination of several European powers had been formed against 
France; and in April, 1793, a formal declaration of war was made by 
France against Great Britain and Holland. A large portion of the 
American people, regarding the situation of France as similar to that of 
the United States in their contest with Great Britain, were disposed to 
reciprocate the favor of our former ally. Although sympathizing 
strongly with France, the president desired to maintain the neutrality of 
the United States. But before deciding upon the course to be taken, it 
was necessary to determine whether it was consistent with our treaties 
with France. By a stipulation in the treaty of alliance with that coun- 
try, the United States were expressly bound to guaranty the French pos- 
sessions in America. The treaty of commerce provided, that free ships 
should make free goods; that is, instead of the enemy's goods being 
subject to seizure and confiscation on board neutral vessels, according to 
the law of nations, such goods were to be free from seizure. 

The president was at Mount Vernon when intelligence of the war be- 
tween France and Great Britain reached him. Having learned that 
vessels were already preparing to engage in privateering on the commerce 
of the belligerent powers, he addressed letters to the secretaries of state 
and of the treasury, requesting them, " to give the subject mature con- 
sideration," that, on his return, measures might be adopted without 
delay, " to prevent our citizens from embroiling us with either of those 
powers." 

On the 18th of April, 1793, the day after his return, he proposed to 
the members of his cabinet, a series of questions, to which written 
answers were requested. Among these questions were the following : 
Shall a proclamation issue for the purpose of preventing interferences of 
the citizens of the United States in the war between France and Great 
Britain ? Shall it contain a declaration or not ? Shall a minister from 
the republic of France be received ? If so, shall it be absolutely, or 
with qualifications ? Are the United States obliged by good faith to 



RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. HI 

consider the treaties with France as applying to the present situation of 
the parties ? or may they either renounce them, or suspend them until 
the government of France shall be established ? If the treaties are now 
in operation, is the guaranty in the treaty of alliance applicable to a de- 
fensive war only ? Ought congress to be assembled with a view to the 
present posture of European affairs ? 

The members were unanimous in favor of a proclamation of neutrality, 
and of receiving a minister. The secretaries of the treasury and of war, 
however, advised the reception with a qualification, on the ground of 
doubt, whether the new government of France could be considered as 
established by the general consent of the nation. The secretary of state 
•and the attorney-general, thought there ought to be no departure from 
the usual mode. Nor did they think the change in the form of the 
French government absolved the United States from the obligations 
assumed by preexisting treaties. 

The secretaries of the treasury and of war, admitted the right of 
nations to change their form of government at pleasure ; but they held 
that, when a change in the internal condition of a state is such, that the 
other party to the alliance can not render the promised aid without en- 
dangering its own safety, its obligation ceases. Considering the means by 
which the present ruling party in France had acquired their power, there 
was no satisfactory evidence that they held it by the general consent of 
the people, or that the present government would be permanent. The 
horrid and unprovoked massacres perpetrated by the Jacobin clubs at 
Paris, and the gross injustice of the leading acts of the revolutionists, 
had drawn against the republic such an immense armed force, as to 
render a continuance of the alliance, in consequence of this new state 
of things, dangerous to the safety of the United States. In their opinion, 
however, the government, instead of annulling or totally suspending the 
treaties, should reserve for future consideration the question, whether 
their operation ought not to be temporarily and provisionally suspended ; 
and if this should be the determination of the government, the expected 
minister ought to be in conciliatory terms apprised of the same. 

These two secretaries held, also, that the clause of guaranty applied 
only to a defensive war, and was not binding in the present war, which 
was commenced by France. The other two members deemed it un- 
necessary at that time to decide this question. The question is here 
suggested, whether the proclamation of neutrality, to which both these 
gentlemen had assented, was not itself tantamount to a limitation or sus- 
pension of the guaranty. None appear to have been in favor of con- 
vening congress. 

The president, in accordance with the opinions of Jefferson and Ran- 



112 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

dolph, concluded to receive the French minister without qualifications or 
explanations. 

The proclamation was issued on the 22d of April. It declared the 
disposition of the government to maintain the existing friendly relations 
with the belligerent powers of Europe, and enjoined the citizens of the 
United States to forbear all acts inconsistent with neutrality. 

Hitherto no open assaults had been made upon the president himself; 
but his popularity was no longer sufficient to shield him from the cen- 
sures of the opponents of his administration. The proclamation was 
regarded as evincing hostility to France, and partiality for Great Britain. 
The cabinet had unanimously advised the proclamation ; but the difi'erent 
views of the members on the French question in general, were well known, 
and tended to keep up the opposition to the administration. 

The present minister of France, Mr. Ternant, who had been appointed 
by the king, was recalled, and succeeded by one more zealously disposed 
to carry out the designs of the new government. The name of the new 
minister was Edmund C. Grenet, usually called Citizen Genet, the title 
of citizen having been substituted for that of Mr. There is scarcely a 
more interesting chapter in the history of our government, than that 
which records the diplomatic career of this minister in the United States. 
It discloses the designs of the French government to induce the United 
States " to make common cause" with that country in a war against 
Great Britain and other European powers ; and but for the prudence and 
firmness of the American executive, and the indiscretion of the French 
minister himself, this country would probably have been involved in a 
most perilous war. 

Genet arrived at Charleston, S. C, April 8th, 1793, where he was 
received with great enthusiasm. He immediately commenced enlisting 
American citizens, and fitting out and commissioning vessels of war to 
cruise against the enemies of France. The transactions of Genet at 
Charleston were made the subject of complaint by the British minister 
to the president. To this cause of complaint was soon added that of 
the annoyance of British commerce by the privateers fitted out by Genet, 
and of the capture, by the French frigate, L'Ambuscade, of the British 
ship Grange, within the capes of Delaware, on her way from the port of 
Philadelphia to the ocean ; for which the British minister demanded 
restitution. 

The memorials of Mr. Hammond, the British minister, having been 
laid before the cabinet, it was unanimously decided, that, as no foreign 
power could exercise authority within the jurisdictional limits of an inde- 
pendent nation, the acts complained of, not being warranted by treaty, 
were violations of neutral rights. The decision was also unanimous, 



GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER 113 

that the Grange, having been captured within the waters of the United 
States, should be restored to her owners. But with respect to the resto- 
ration of the vessels captured by the privateers fitted out by Grenet, there 
was a difference of opinion. Jefferson and Randolph held, that if the 
commissions issued by G-enet were invalid, the courts would adjudge the 
property to the former owners. Remedy ought therefore to be sought 
by a recourse to law and not to the government. And with a disavowal 
of the act, and the taking of measures to prevent its repetition, Great 
Britain ought to be satisfied. Hamilton and Knox maintained that the 
captures were illegal, and in violation of the proclamation of neutral- 
ity ; and that, by refusing to make restitution, the United States would 
become a party to the war. The case being one in which the national 
sovereignty was infringed, it was a proper one for the government^ and 
not for the courts to determine. They therefore advised the restoration 
of the vessels. On this point, the president took time to deliberate. He 
afterwards adopted the opinions of the two latter gentlemen. 

The decision that the commissions issued by Genet were illegal and 
void, and that the Grange should be restored — points upon which all 
were agreed — ^was communicated to the British and French ministers, 
the day before the arrival of Genet at Philadelphia. Letters were alao 
addressed to the executives of the several states, requiring them to aid 
in executing the rules established. After a stay of several weeks at 
Charleston, Genet proceeded to Philadelphia. He was received at 
different places on the way, with expressions of the warmest attach- 
ment. On the 16th of April, he arrived at the seat of government, 
amidst the shouts of the joyous multitude, embracing a large portion of 
the inhabitants. The communication sent the day previous to Mr. Ter- 
nant, was by him in due time delivered to Genet, whose displeasure was 
highly excited by the decisions of the administration on the French 
question. 

Genet was the bearer of a public letter addressed by the national con- 
vention to the people of the United States. This letter, published at 
Paris in December, had been republished in this country before his 
arrival. In it the convention aay : " The immense distance which parts 
us, prevents your taking, in this glorious regeneration of Europe, that 
concern which your principles and past conduct reserved to you." On 
the 18th of May, he was formally presented to the president and 
duly received. On this occasion he assured the president that, " on 
account of the remote situation of the United States, and other circum- 
stances, France did not expect that they should become a party in the 
war, but wished to see them preserve their prosperity and happiness in 
peace." It afterwards appeared, however, that he had brought with him 



114 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

secret instructions, charging him to endeavor to induce the American 
government to make common cause with France. 

On the 23d of May, Genet communicated a decree of the French 
convention, by which American vessels were admitted into the ports of 
France and her East and West India colonies, with the same privileges 
as those enjoyed by her own. In the letter accompanying this decree, 
he says : " The French republic, seeing in the Americans but brothers, 
has opened to them, by the decrees now inclosed, all her ports in the 
two worlds; and has charged me to propose to your government to 
establish, in a true family compact, the liberal and fraternal basis on 
which she wishes to see raised the commercial and political system of 
the two people, all whose interests are confounded." In forming this 
new " compact" it was the object of the French executive council, as 
appears from their instructions, to enlarge the treaty of 1778. They 
suggest " a national agreement, to befriend the empire of liberty, to 
guaranty the sovereignty of the people, and to punish those powers who 
still keep up an exclusive colonial and commercial system, by declaring 
that their vessels shall not be received in the ports of the contracting 
parties." Genet was instructed to require of the United States, 
in the " enlarged" treaty, a new guaranty of the French West India 
Islands, as a condition of their free commerce with those islands. Ilis 
instructions say : " The citizen Genet will find the less diflSculty in mak- 
ing this proposition relished in the United States, as the trade which will 
be the reward of it will indemnify them ultimately for the sacrifices they 
may make at the outset ; and the Americans can not be ignorant of the 
great disproportion between their resources and those of the French 
republic ; and that for a long period, the guaranty asked of them will be 
little else than nominal for them, while that on our part will be real j 
and we shall immediately put ourselves in a state to fulfill it, in sending 
to the American ports a sufficient force to put them beyond insult, and 
to facilitate their communication with the islands and with France." 

From these instructions, and the subsequent conduct of Genet, it 
became evident to the American government, that, in the proposed modi- 
fication of the commercial and political relations of the two countries, 
the chief object was to efi"ect such a political connection with France, as 
would have identified the United States with her in all her fortunes. 

France being engaged in war, and in want of funds, Genet was in- 
structed to request the immediate payment of the remainder of the 
French debt, not yet due. As an inducement, he proposed to expend 
the whole sum (between two and three millions of dollars,) in the pur- 
chase of provisions and other productions of the United States. The 
government, unwilling to resort to new loans for this purpose, especially 



5ENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. llf 

as money could not then be obtained on favorable terms, declined the 
proposal. At this refusal Genet took offense, and, in his reply, said it 
tended " to accomplish the infernal system of the king of England, and 
of the other kings, his accomplices, to destroy, by famine, the French 
republicans and liberty." 

Upon every decision of the government unfavorable to the designs of 
Genet, he made direct issue. He claimed the right to arm vessels in 
the ports of the United States, under that article of the treaty by which 
the parties agreed not to permit the enemies of either to fit out priva- 
teers in their ports. The express prohibition of this privilege to ene- 
mies^ he considered as implying z, permission to the parties themselves. 
The president maintained, that the silence of the treaty respecting the 
rights of the contracting parties did not justify the inference of the right 
claimed. This point, on which the treaty was silent, must be determined 
by circumstances. Genet also insisted on the right, by the treaty, to arm 
vessels and to try and sell prizes in American ports, under the article 
allowing each party to bring prizes into the ports of the other. The 
president considered this provision as merely a permission to the parties 
to enter and leave the ports of each other with prizes, but not of equip- 
ping vessels. Genet also held the singular doctrine, that the American 
government was not responsible for the acts of its citizens who had 
enlisted on board "of the French privateers, as they had for the time 
renounced the protection of their own country. 

Notwithstanding the determination of the government to enforce the 
rules of neutrality, Genet persisted in his unlawful acts. In his war- 
fare against the government, he was encouraged by the aid he received 
from our own citizens. A powerful political party and its presses were 
allied with him in this warfare. The two opposition papers at Philadel- 
phia, Freneau's Gazette, and Bache's Advertiser, both pronounced the 
proclamation, not only a violation of the treaties with France, but a 
xisurpation of the rights of congress. Genet was expressly told that the 
people would sustain him. The lead of these papers was soon followed 
by kindred presses in other parts of the union. 

The paper first above mentioned exhorted thus : " The minister of 
France, I hope, will act with firmness and with spirit. The people are 
his friends, or the friends of France, and he will have nothing to appre- 
hend ; for as yet the people are sovereign of the United States. * * • 
If one of the leading features of our government is pusillanimity, when 
the British lion shows his teeth, let France and her minister act as be- 
comes the dignity and justice of her cause, and the honor and faith of 
nations." The other paper said : " It is no longer possible to doubt, 
that the intention of the executive of the United States is, to look upon 



116 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the treaty of amity and commerce between France and America, as a 
nullity ; and that they are prepared to join the league of kings against 
France." 

An impulse was also sought to be given to the cause of France by the 
formation of " democratic societies," on the plan of the Jacobin clubs of 
Paris. The first of these was formed in Philadelphia, soon after Genet's 
arrival. The declared object of these societies was the protection of 
American liberty against a *' European confederacy,' and " the pride of 
wealth and arrogance of power" at home. These societies brought their 
influence to bear against the president, and in favor of the French min- 
ister. After the fall of Robespiere in France, these societies, as did 
their prototypes in Paris, soon died away. 

Thus supported, it is not so strange that Genet persisted in setting 
the government at defiance. It was said that not less than fifty British 
vessels — some of them within the jurisdiction of the United States — 
were captured by vessels fitted out and acting under his authority. And 
in spite of express prohibitions, French consuls continued to exercise ad- 
miralty powers, in holding prize courts, and in the condemnation and 
sale of prizes. 

The language of the French minister in his correspondence was highly 
disrespectful and offensive. Obstructions to the arming of Freuch ves- 
sels, he pronounced " an attempt on the rights of man," and insinuated 
the charge against the American government of " a cowardly abandon- 
ment of their friends," and of acting against " the intention of the 
people of America," whose " fraternal voice resounded from every 
quarter around him." 

Another subject of complaint by the French minister was, that French 
property had been taken by British cruisers from American vessels, 
without any efibrt on the part of our government to reclaim it. This he 
declared to be contrary to the principles of neutrality and the law of 
nations, that " friendly vessels make friendly goods." In permitting 
this seizure of French goods, he chargqd our government, indirectly, 
with tolerating " an audacious piracy," and says, " the French, too con- 
fidant, arc punished for having believed that the (American) nation had 
a flag ; that they had some respect for their laws, some conviction of 
their strength ; and entertained some sentiment of dignity. But," says 
he, " if our fellow-citizens have been deceived, and if you are not in a 
condition to maintain the sovereignty of your people, speak ; we have 
guarantied it when slaves, we shall be able to render it formidable, having 
become freemen." And he wished to know what measures had been 
taken to restore the property plundered from his fellow-citizens, under 
the American flag. 



GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. 117 

The secretary of state, in answer, reminds the minister of a very im- 
portant mistake. He is told that, by the law of nations, " the goods of 
a friend, found in the vessel of an enemy, are free ; and that the goods 
of an enemy, found in the vessel of a friend, are lawful prize." It was 
true, that, by a special provision in our treaty with France, the character 
of the vessel should be imparted to the cargo ; that is, free ships should 
make free goods. But no such regulation existed between the United 
States and Great Britain : therefore, in this case, the law of nations 
must govern. 

Genet's disrespect of the public authorities was strikingly evinced in 
the case of the Little Sarah. This vessel had been taken by a French 
frigate, and brought into the port of Philadelphia, where she was 
equipped as a privateer, and called Little Democrat. When the vessel 
was about to sail, Mr. Hamilton, to whom the fact had become known, 
communicated the same to the other secretaries, the president having 
been suddenly called to Mount Yernon. The interposition of the 
governor of Pennsylvania was requested, who sent his secretary of state, 
Mr. Dallas, to persuade Genet to detain the vessel, and save him the 
necessity of employing force. On receiving the message. Genet became 
enraged, and indulged in intemperate language toward those oflScers of 
the government whom he considered inimical to the cause of France, 
and by whom the president was misled. He said the president had not 
the power to issue a proclamation of neutrality ; it belonged to congress ; 
and he intimated his intention to appeal from the president to the 
people. He would remain until the meeting of congress ; and if the 
representatives of the people should sustain the president, he would 
depart, and leave the dispute to be settled by the two nations. 

Genet having refused to give any pledge to detain the vessel, Gov. 
Mifflin ordered out one hundred and twenty men to take possession of 
her. Mr. Jefferson, desirous to prevent the employment of military 
force, called on Genet to induce him to give his word that the privateer 
should remain till the return of the president. But he refused, sayino- 
the crew would resist by force any attempt to seize the vessel ; declaring 
at the same time that she was not ready to sail. It was intended 
merely to move a little down the river that day ; and the declaration 
that she was not yet ready to sail, was repeated in such a manner as to in- 
duce the belief that she would not depart. Mr. Jefferson having ex- 
pressed this belief to the governor, the militia were dismissed. Messrs. 
Hamilton and Knox then proposed to erect a battery on Mud Island to 
prevent her passage down the river. Mr. Jefferson dissenting, the 
measure was not adopted ; and before the arrival of the president, the 
vessel passed down to Chester, whence she might at any time sail without 
fear of having her progress arrested by the government 



118 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The president reached Philadelphia on the 1 1th of July, and requested 
a cabinet meeting at his house the next morning. On reading the papers 
of the secretary of state relating to the Little Democrat, and the secre- 
tary not being present, a messenger was dispatched for him ; but he had 
retired, indisposed, to his country seat. The president immediately 
addressed a letter to him, which contained the following : " What is to 
be done in the case of the Little Sarah now at Chester ? Is the minister 
of the French republic to set the acts of this government at defiance with 
impunity, and then threaten the executive with an appeal to the people ? 
What must the world think of such conduct, and of the government of 
the United States in submitting to it ? These are serious questions — 
circumstances press for decision ; and as you have had time to consider 
them, (upon me they come unexpectedly,) I wish to know your opinion 
upon them even before to-morrow; for the vessel may then be gone." 
The secretary answered, that immediate coercive measures had been sus- 
pended, on the assurances of Genet that the vessel would await the pre- 
sident's decision. 

It was agreed in the cabinet council, to refer to the judges of the 
supreme court, the case of the Little Democrat, together with the 
subjects of difference between the executive and the French minister in 
the construction of treaties ; and to retain in port all privateers equipped 
by France and England within the United States. Genet was informed 
of this determination ; but before any decision could be had, the Little 
Democrat sailed, and other vessels soon followed. 

The conduct of the French minister having at length become intoler- 
able, it was unanimously agreed in cabinet council, that a statement of 
his acts, and a copy of his correspondence, with a letter requesting his 
recall, should be sent to Gouverneur Morris, to be laid before the French 
executive council. Genet, to whom a copy of the statement was com- 
municated, was highly exasperated by this proceeding. His invectives 
were directed not only against the president and those members of the 
cabinet whom he considered "partisans of monarchy;" he did not in this 
case spare the secretary of state, whom he had regarded as a friend, and 
who had " initiated him into mysteries which had inflamed his hatred 
against all those who aspired to absolute pcwer." He disapproved the 
use of " an ofiicial language, and a language confidential." 

Genet, as well as the French consuls, persisted in the exercise of his 
unauthorized powers. His crowning acts of sovereignty within the 
United States, were the setting on foot of two military expeditions 
against the Spanish dominions ; one from South Carolina and Georgia 
for the invasion of the Floridas ; the other from Kentucky against New 
Orleans and Louisiana. He had issued commissions for the enlistment 



POLICY OF GREAT BRITAIN. 119 

of men, and considerable progress had been made in raising troops, wben 
the movement, though conducted secretly, became known, and measures 
were taken by the government of South Carolina for its suppression. 
The other project found great favor with the western inhabitants, who 
complained of the exclusion, by Spain, of the people of the United States, 
from a free navigation of the Mississippi ; and it was not without some 
difficulty that the federal authorities succeeded in arresting the 
enterprise. 

But we may not extend this sketch of the proceedings of the French 
minister. Suffice it to say, that, in consequence of his continued inso- 
lence, and his efforts to array the people and their representatives against 
the executive, the president came to the determination to refuse all far- 
ther intercourse with him ; and was about to present the subject to con- 
gress, when his recall was officially communicated by Mr. Morris. 
Fauchet, the new minister, arrived soon after, (February, 1794,) and Mr. 
Morris, not sufficiently zealous for the French cause, was recalled at the 
request of the executive government of France ; and Mr. Monroe, an 
ardent friend of France, was appointed to succeed him. 

There was, perhaps, no time when there was not a majority of the 
people in favor of neutrality and the proclamation. The reprehensible 
conduct of the French minister, and the horrid excesses committed by 
the revolutionists, doubtless weakened the cause of France in this 
country. There was, however, a powerful party opposed to the proclama- 
tion, and in favor of joining France. This party derived not a little 
strength from the divisions known to exist in the cabinet. Mr. Jefferson 
entertained a strong partiality for France, and considered the guaranty 
in full force. Although he had assented to the proclamation, he regarded 
the question of neutrality as merely reserved to the meeting of congress. 

This question was publicly discussed by Hamilton and Madison. 
These two distinguished statesmen, who had been associated in advo- 
cating the adoption of the constitution, in those celebrated numbers of 
the Federalist, now took opposite sides in the practical construction of 
that instrument with reference to an important question. Hamilton 
appeared in seven numbers, under the signature of Pacificus, in which 
the authority of the executive to issue the proclamation, and its consis- 
tency with our treaties with France, were maintained with great ability. 
These numbers were replied to by Madison at the request, it is said, of 
Jefferson. The reply was in five numbers, signed Helvidius, in which 
the positions of Pacificus were combated with great ingenuity and force. 

The reaction in favor of the government produced by the causes above 
mentioned, were more than counterbalanced by the operation of certain 
measures of the British government annoying to neutral trade. The 



120 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

transfer of a large portion of the laboring population of France from 
their usual avocations to the military service, added to other causes, had 
produced a scarcity of provisions. Induced by this state of things, as 
well as by other motives, she had, as has been observed, opened her ports 
to neutral commerce. 

In perfect contrast with this measure, was the policy of Great Britain, 
In the hope of reducing her enemy by famine, it was determined to cut 
off external supplies. Instructions were accordingly issued to the 
British cruisers to stop all vessels having on board breadstuffs, and 
bound to any port of France, and to bring them into a convenient port. 
If they were proved to be neutral property, the cargoes were to be pur- 
chased and the ships released ; or, both ships and cargoes were to be 
released on the master's giving bond that they would proceed to dispose 
of the cargo in the ports of countries at peace with Great Britain. These 
instructions, issued the 8th of June, 1 793, did not reach the United 
States until September. Great Britain, in justification of this measure, 
alleged that, by the law of nations, as laid down by the most modern 
writers, all provisions were deemed contraband and liable to confiscation, 
when the depriving of an enemy of these supplies was one of the means 
intended to be employed for reducing him to reasonable terms of peace. 
But the British orders, it was said, did not go even to the extent allowable, 
neither prohibiting all kinds of provisions, nor requiring forfeiture The 
American government, on the other hand, maintained, that both " reason 
and usage had established, that when two nations went to war, those who 
chose to live in peace, retain their natural rights to pursue their agricul- 
ture, manufactures, and other ordinary vocations ; to carry the produce 
of their industry, for exchange, to all nations, belligerents or neutrals 
as usual ; to go and come freely, without injury or molestation." 

Great Britain also urged that the neutral character of the trade was 
changed by the fact, that the contracts for the greater part of the car- 
goes had been made by the French goverfwicnt. It was therefore a 
national, not an individual transaction. It was farther urged in justifi- 
cation, that the measure was sanctioned by the example of France her- 
self. A decree of her national convention, issued in May, and remain- 
ing in full force, authorized the capture and condemnation of an enemy's 
property in neutral vessels, (not excepting those of the United States,) 
contrary to a special stipulation in the treaty between the United States 
and France, that "free ships should make free goods." 

The enforcement of these orders, in which the allied powers were 
united, greatly embarrassed American commerce. This measure, super- 
added to the supposed encouragement of Indian hostilities b}' the British 
in Canada ; the continued occupation of the western military posts ; the 



THE THIRD CONGRESS. V^l 

alleged agency of the British government in the depredations upon our 
commerce, and the enslavement of our seamen by Algerine cruisers ; and 
the impressment of American seamen into the British service ; awakened 
resentments in the American people, towards Great Britain, scarcely less 
intense than those which impelled them to arms to secure their independ- 
ence. Add to all this the menacing aspect of affairs with Spain, the 
Florida boundary question remaining unsettled ; the southei-n . states 
threatened with war from the Creeks and Cherokees, supposed to have 
been instigated by the Spanish government .; the Mississippi closed 
against the Americans, a cause of general discontent among the western 
inhabitants ; and a strong suspicion of an alliance between Spain and 
Great Britain against the United States ; — and it was easy to imagine 
the difficulty of maintaining the position of neutrality assumed by the 
administration. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE THIRD CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ^JEFFERSOn's 

COMMERCIAL REPORT ; HIS RESIGNATION. MADISOn's RESOLUTIONS. 

PROSPECT OF WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. JAY's MISSION TO ENGLAND. 

In the state of affairs just described, the new congress convened on 
the 2d of December, 1793 ; and its deliberations were awaited with deep 
interest. 

At this session, a resolution was passed by the senate, declaring that 
the business of that body, hitherto transacted with closed doors, should 
be done publicly, after the termination of the present session. 

In the house, Frederick A. Muhlenburg, of Pennsylvania, was elected 
speaker over Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, by a majority of ten 
votes, indicating a predominance of the opposition party in that body. 

The president, in his speech, alluding to the measures adopted as a 
rule of conduct toward belligerent nations, ascribed them to a desire to 
prevent the interruption of our intercourse with them, and to manifest a 
disposition for peace. He said : " In this posture of affairs, both new 
and delicate, I resolved to adopt general rules which should conform to 
the treaties, and assert the privileges of the United States. These were 
reduced to a feystem, which shall be communicated to you." He sug- 
gested to congress the expediency of providing remedies in cases " where 
individuals shall, within the United Stp'es, array themselves in hostility 
against any of the powers a* war, or enter upon military expeditions or 



122 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

enterprises, or usurp and exercise judicial authority, witLiu the United 
States;" and then said: 

" I can not recommend to your notice measures for the fulfillment of 
our duties to the rest of the world, without again pressing upon you the 
necessity of placing ourselves in a condition of complete defense, and of 
exacting from them the fulfillment of their duties toward us. * * * 
There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be 
withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we 
desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it ; if we desire to secure 
peace — one of the most powerful instruments of our prosperity — it must 
be known that we are, at all times, ready for war." He also suggested 
provisions for " the regular redemption and discharge of the public 
debt,'' and the "productiveness of the public revenues." 

In this message was recommended a just and humane policy towards 
the Indian nations, designed " to conciliate their attachment" and " to 
render tranquillity with them permanent, by creating ties of interest" — 
a policy strictly pursued during several successive administrations. 

In a message communicated a day or two after, the president referred 
to the orders and decrees of Great Britain and France, so injurious to 
our commerce, and informed congress of the acts and proceedings of the 
French minister, " the tendency of which," he said, " had been to in- 
volve us in war abroad, and discord and anarchy at home." 

The house of representatives, in their answer, which was unanimously 
adopted, said : " The maintenance of peace was justly to be regarded 
as one of the most important duties of the magistrate charged with the 
faithful execution of the laws. We therefore witness, with approbation 
and pleasure, the vigilance with which you have guarded an interruption 
of that blessing by your proclamation, admonishing our fellow-citizens 
of the consequences of illicit and hostile acts toward the belligerent 
parties ; and promoting, by a declaration of the existing legal state of 
things, an easier admission of our right to the immunities belonging to 
our situation." The senate responded in similar terms of approbation. 

On the 16th of December, Mr. Jefierson made a report to the house 
on the commerce of the United States, in pursuance of a resolution of 
that body, passed in February, 1791, instructing him "to report to 
congress the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the 
commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and 
the measures which he should think proper to be adopted for the im- 
provement of the commerce and navigation of the same." This report 
is by some considered one of the ablest official productions of Mr. Jef- 
ferson. 

From this report it apnearcd, i^ at the exports of the United States in 



Jefferson's commercial report. 123 

domestic produce and manufactures, amounted to $19,587,055 , the im- 
ports to $19,823,000. Of the exports, nearly one-half were carried to 
Great Britain and her dominions ; of the imports, about four-fifths came 
from the same countries. American shipping was 277,519 tons, of 
which not quite one-sixth was employed in the trade with those countries. 
In all the nations of Europe, most of our products bore heavy duties, 
and some articles were prohibited. In Grreat Britain, our trade was on 
the whole on as good footing as that of other countries : some articles 
were more favored than similar articles from other countries. 

Our navigation was seriously affected by the regulations of Grreat 
Britain. Her navigation acts of 1660 and 1663, which prohibited to 
the colonies the privilege allowed to other countries, of bringing their 
own productions into Great Britain, were unrepealed. Since the war, 
the king had been authorized to extend this privilege to the United 
States, and had done so from year to year by proclamation ; but a more 
secure enjoyment of the right was desirable. The report stated also, 
that a large proportion of the commodities exported to Great Britain, 
were required to be carried to her ports, to be thence reexported ; thus 
subjecting them to additional charges of double voyage. 

As a method of relief to our commerce, the secretary proposed, first, 
as being preferable, the removal of these restrictions by friendly arrange- 
ments ; or, secondly, by countervailing acts. If a nation persists in a 
" system of prohibitions, duties, and regill|tions, it behooves the United 
States to protect \heir citizens, their commerce, and navigation, by 
counter prohibitions, duties, and regulations also." Our navigation was 
said to be valuable as a branch of industry, but more so as a resource of 
defense. 

It was stated, that France had proposed entering into a new treaty for 
improving the commercial relations of the two countries ; but her inter- 
nal disturbapces had prevented the prosecution of the negotiation to 
effect. Proposals of friendly arrangements with Great Britain had been 
made on our part ; " but being already on as good a footing in law, and 
a better in fact, than the most favored nations^ she has not as yet dis- 
covered any disposition to have it meddled with." 

The secretary stated, that, since the report was prepared in time to be 
laid before the preceding congress, France had relaxed some of the 
restraints mentioned in the report ; and Spain had made free ports of 
New Orleans, Pensacola, and St. Augustine, to the vessels of friendly 
nations having treaties of commerce with her. She had excluded our 
rice from her dominions. On account of the war she had given us free 
access to her West India islands ; but our vessels were liable to serious 
vexations and" depredations. 



124 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



In a subsequent report, (December 30,) the secretary communicated 
the copy of a decree of the French national convention, admitting pro- 
visions and certain other articles into the French West India islands, in 
American vessels, free of duty; also, a copy of the Spanish decree 
alluded to in the former report. 

This, the last official act of the secretary, was followed, the next day, 
by his resignation. He had in the summer intimated an intention to 
resign in September ; but he had, on solicitation, deferred the execution 
of his purpose till the close of the year. Mr. Randolph was appointed 
as his successor ; and the office of attorney-general, vacated by the 
appointment, was filled by William Bradford, of Pennsylvania. 

On thiijth of January, 1794, Mr. Madison introduced his noted reso- 
lutions, designed to carry out the objects of Mr. Jefferson's commercial 
report. The first of these resolutions declared it expedient to increase 
the duties on the tonnage of vessels of nations which had no commercial 
treaties with the United States, and on their manufactures of leather, 
metals, wool, cotton, hemp, flax, and silk ; and to reduce the tonnage 
duties on vessels of nations having such treaties. They also proposed an 
increase of duty on importations from the West Indies in foreign vessels 
from ports from which American were excluded. 

On the 1 3th of January, Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, opened the 
debate in opposition to these resolutions. He proposed to discuss the 
subject as a purely commercial one, without reference to our political 
relations with foreign countries. He produced a* table of statistics, 
showing that our commerce was on the whole as much favored in Great 
Britain as in France. These statistics did not extend to a period later 
than the fiscal year ending September 30, 1792. The commercial regu- 
lations of France during the period of the revolution, had been too fluc- 
tuating, too much influenced by momentary impulse, to be considered as 
part of a system. So far as they proposed favors to this country, they 
manifested an object of the moment, which could not be mistaken. The 
privileges in the West India trade offered by G-enet, he considered the 
price of becoming a party in the war. 

Previous to the demand in France created by the present war, the 
exports of flour to Great Britain and her colonies, were to those of 
France and her colonies, as twenty to one. He extended his statements 
to all the principal articles of exportation to those two countries. The 
average value of our exports, annually for three years from October 1, 
1789, was, to Great Britain, $8,489,830; to France, $4,737,131. 

TTie secretary had stated that a great part of the exports to Great 
Britain were reexported thence at the disadvantage of double charges. 
This statement Mr. S. believed was founded on statements of lord 



MADISON S RESOLUTIONS. 125 

Shoffiield, having refereaco to a period prior to the American revolution, 
"when Great Britain had a monopoly of our trade. But admitting that 
she exported at present one-third of what she received from us, she 
would still consume more of our products than France. 

He considered large importations from Britain no grievance, but a 
benefit. She could supply us with an assortment of the goods we wanted ; 
and could also give us a credit, which was an advantage to a young 
country wanting capital. If the encouragement of domestic manufactures 
had been made the object of the resolutions, some alteration in our com- 
mercial regulations with Great Britain might be advantageous. But the 
object was to turn the tide of trade from Great Britain to France. He 
admitted the disadvantage of a dependence on one nation for a supply of 
necessaries; but a change should not be brought about by artificial 
methods. To lessen the importations from Great Britain, we must 
impose higher duties on her commodities than on those of other countries, 
which would be a bounty on the manufactures, not of our own country, 
but of those of foreign nations. 

He also noticed the statement of the secretary, that Great Britain 
alone had discovered no disposition to negotiate, but that " we had no 
reason to conclude that friendly arrangements would be declined by other 
nations." From the correspondence of the British minister, Mr. Ham- 
mond, the fact appeared otherwise. Mr. Jefl"crson asked him if he was 
empowered to treat on the subject of commerce. He replied that he 
was fully authorized to enter into a negotiation for that purpose, though 
not as yet empowered to conclude. Upon farther difficulty and objection 
on the part of Mr. Jefi"erson, Mr. Hammond reassures him of his compe- 
tency to enter on a negotiation, which is based on his commission as 
minister plenipotentiary and his instructions. Mr. Jefi"erson requires a 
communication of his full poivers for that purpose, and declines the 
negotiation. The declining, therefore, was not on the part of the British 
minister. Forms were the obstacle with the secretary of state, whose 
zeal, at best, was not greater than Mr. Hammond's. Measures had 
been taken for forming treaties with Spain, and also with Portugal ; but 
no proper treaty with either could be obtained. Why then was Great 
Britain selected for attack, but that it was " most in unison with our 
passions to enter into collisions with her ?" 

Mr. Smith apprehended that the proposed regulations would provoke 
Great Britain to a war, either of arms, or of commercial regulations. If 
the former, she could easily persuade her allies to make common cause 
with her. But if she should prefer the latter, how would the contest 
stand ? A commercial warfare would disturb the course of one-sixth of 
her trade, and more than one-half of ours. She had also the advantages 



126 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of greater capital, and of being both a manufacturing and an agricultural 
nation. Our navigation was rapidly increasing under the present system ; 
and our other great national interests were in a progressive state. It 
was therefore deemed impolitic to disturb the present order of things by 
hazardous experiments. 

The remarks of the speaker were extended to a very great length, but 
we can not pursue them farther. 

Mr. Madison replied to Mr. Smith the next day, January 1 4th. He 
also was friendly to a free intercourse with all nations. But to this 
rule, as to all general rules, there might be exceptions ; and the rule 
itself required, what did not exist, that it should be general. The navi- 
gation act of Great Britain had secured to her eleven-twelfths of the 
shipping and seamen employed in her trade. Here was a great gain 
from a departure of the rule. Another exception to the advantages of a 
free trade, is found in the case of two countries in such relation to each 
other, that the one, by duties on the manufactures of the other, might 
not only invigorate its own, but draw from the other the workmen them- 
selves. To allow trade to regulate itself, is, as our own experience has 
taught us, to allow one nation to regulate it for another. 

Mr. Madison then adverted to the effects of foreign policy upon our 
trade and navigation, and the attention it excited soon after the peace ; 
and he recapitulated the various unsuccessful attempts to counteract the 
foreign policy, which resulted in the establishment of a government com- 
petent to regulate our commercial interests, and to vindicate our commer- 
cial rights. When this subject was discussed in the first congress, it was 
said we ought to be generous to Great Britain, and give time for nego- 
tiating a treaty of commerce. We had waited four years, and no treaty 
is either in train or in prospect. 

Our navigation, he said, was not on an equal footing with England 
and France. Our ports admitted the produce of all countries in British 
vessels, while our vessels could carry into the ports of Great Britain 
only our own commodities ; and from her West India ports they were 
entirely excluded. The effects of the British navigation acts would 
appear from the following facts : 

In our trade with that country, the amount of American tonnage em- 
ployed, was 43,000 tons ; that of Great Britain, 240,000 tons : while in 
our intercourse with Spain, our tonnage was to hers as five to one ; with 
Portugal as six to one ; Netherlands, fifteen to one ; Denmark, twelve 
to one ; France, five to one. This proportion had been somewhat 
changed by particular circumstances. Our tonnage in the same trade 
with Great Britain, was still only as one to three ; with France between 
four and five to one Our exports were not only, for the most part, 



Madison's resolutions. 127 

necessaries of life, wtich the British manufacturers must have ; but 
thej were bulky, and required a large amount of shipping. Therefore, 
by securing to ourselves the transportation of our own products, the pro- 
portion of our shipping and sailors would be greatly increased. 

Of manufactures imported, the amount was stated to be $1 5,290,000 ; 
of which $13,960,000 came from Great Britain; from France only 
$155,000, while the latter actually consumed more of our produce than 
the former. The balance of trade, at the same time, was greatly in our 
favor with every other nation, and greatly against us with Great Britain ; 
and an unfavorable balance, to be paid in specie, was by all nations con- 
sidered an evil — especially was Great Britain careful to prevent it. We 
consume, said Mr. Madison, her manufactures to double the amount of 
all she takes from us, and four times the amount of what she actually 
consumes of our products. We take every thing after it has undergone 
all the profitable labor that can be bestowed on it ; she receives in return, 
raw materials, the food of her industry. We send necessaries to her ; 
she sends superfluities to us. 

As to a discrimination in favor of nations having commercial treaties 
with us, it had had the sanction of votes in that house ; and it was in 
accordance with the practice of nations. It tended to procure beneficial 
treaties from nations that desire an equality with other nations in their 
commerce. 

The measure proposed was dictated by prudence. It would relieve us 
from a state of commercial dependence. We should not be dependent 
upon a single nation for necessary articles of consumption, or of defense 
in time of war. He apprehended no injury from the adoption of the 
proposed measure ; it was not for the interest of Great Britain to re- 
taliate. She would be the greater sufi"erer from a stagnation of trade 
between the two countries. Her merchants, her manufacturers, her 
navigation, and her revenue, would be seriously affected by it. Her 
West Indies would be ruined by it. We too should sufier, but in a less 
degree. In proportion- as a nation manufactures luxuries, must be its 
disadvantage in contests with its customers. Let the trade between the 
United States and Great Britain cease, and 300,000 of her manufac- 
turers would be thrown out of employment, and would probably be added 
to the population of this country, the natural asylum for the distressed 
of Europe. 

Iji had been said that Great Britain treated the United States as well 
as she treated other nations. That other nations were willing to submit 
to unequal regulations, or were unable to vindicate their rights, ought 
not to satisfy us. Mr. Madison compared the regulations of Great 
Britain with those of other countries, to show that the former were not 



128 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

as favorable as the latter ; and be submitted a comparative statement of 
the commercial policy of Great Britain and France toward us, very 
different from that of Mr. Smith. He considered the present order of 
things in France a settled order, and that the trade with that country 
would maintain its present position. From the statement he presented, 
it appeared that the total of French consumption of American products 
exceeded that of British consumption by nearly one million of dollars. 

The correspondence between the British minister and Mr. Jefferson 
relating to negotiation, was reviewed, and the conclusion drawn from it 
was, that the construction put by Mr. Hammond on his powers was in- 
admissible, and that the executive had equally consulted dignity and 
prudence, in silently dropping the subject in the manner they did, until 
he should produce adequate powers in the accustomed form. 

The resolutions were supported by several other gentlemen. It was 
said that the credit given by British merchants, was but an injury. It 
encouraged overtrading, and caused a heavy balance of trade against us ; 
discouraged domestic manufactures ; and promoted luxury. The policy 
of Great Britain had given her the control of our trade ; and we should 
endeavor to change its course. By buying the manufactures of France, 
a portion of her population would be drawn off from agricultural 
pursuits, and a market opened for our produce. The temporary disad- 
vantage of this policy would be amply repaid by permanent benefits. 
Great Britain being embarrassed with a dangerous foreign war, it was 
deemed a favorable time to induce her to consent to some relaxation of 
the rigorous policy she hag hitherto pursued. 

Several other speakers also opposed the resolutions. They would not 
retaliate injuries under the cloak of commercial regulations. If the 
resolutions were adopted, it should be because they would promote the 
p\iblic interest. Their avowed objects were to favor navigation and man- 
ufactures. If navigation was to have additional encouragement, let the 
duties on all foreign vessels be increased, and let the impositions upon 
American vessels in the several foreign countries be met by equal im- 
positions, instead of encouraging one foreign nation at the expense of 
another. Several members opposed to the resolutiono, expressed them- 
selves in favor of a navigation act which should meet the restrictions 
imposed upon our vessels by other nations, with corresponding restric- 
tions upon theirs. 

Nor was the plan likely to promote domestic manufactures. This 
object was to be effected by laying duties on the particular articles, the 
manufacture of which was to be encouraged. But the primary motive 
of the resolutions was not the increase of our agriculture, manufactures, 
or navigation, but to humble Great Britain and build up France. 



Madison's resolutions. 129 

The foregoing sketch of this debate, though imperfect, presents the prin- 
cipal arguments on both sides of the question ; some of which have been 
more than once reproduced in the discussions of the same or kindred 
subjects since that period. 

On the 3d of February, the question was taken upon the first resolu- 
tion, and carried by a majority of five. When the second resolution, 
which related to the duties, came up for consideration, Mr. Fitzsimmons 
moved an amendment designed to extend its operation to all nations. 
This motion gave-way to one from Mr. Nicholas, restricting its effects to 
Great Britain. The subjectwas then postponed until the first Monday of 
March. 

On the 5th of February, the house took up a report made in pursuance 
of a resolution previously adopted, declaring "that a naval force ade 
quate to the protection of the commerce of the United States against the 
Algerine corsairs, ought to be provided." The bill provided for the 
building of siz frigates ; four of forty-four, and two of thirty-six guns, 
each. The debate on this subject affords another of the many illustra- 
tions of the common propensity to view public measures through a party 
medium. 

The proposed force was said to be insufficient to answer the intended 
purpose, and could not be brought into immediate use. It would be 
cheaper and more eligible to purchase the friendship of the Algerines, as 
other nations had done. Or, if this was impracticable, we might pur- 
chase the aid of foreign powers in protecting our commerce. But the 
plan was most objectionable, as being the commencement of a permanent 
navy ; the expense of which T^uld perpetuate the public debt, and load 
the people with insupportable burdens. We had gone far enough in this 
system of tyranny — -that of governing a nation by debts. The oppres- 
sions of the people of England and France, caused in great part by their 
expensive navy establishments, had led to the overthrow of the monarchy 
of the one, and was threatening that of the other. 

To this it was replied, that the information lately communicated 
forbade all hope of purchasing peace. To subsidize other nations to pro- 
tect our commerce, when we were able to protect it ourselves, was dero- 
gatory to the national character. Besides, nations at peace with Algiers 
would be unwilling to relinquish that peace for any sum we would pay 
them. Nations at war with that power, had sufficient inducements to 
check the depredations of their enemy without subsidies. With a navy 
of our own, we could cooperate effectually with any power that might 
be at war with Algiers, and accomplish what could not be done by a 
single nation. 

Against the expense of the contemplated force, must be offset the 

Q 



i30 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

value of ships and cargoes saved, and the money paid in extra insurance 
and for the ransom of captured seamen. But a far more important 
object was, to prevent an increase- of the number of these unfortunate 
captives. It was a matter of surprise that alarm should be taken at a 
proposition to equip a small armament, especially by gentlemen who had 
just advocated the improvement of our navigation as a measure of 
defense, at the hazard of a commercial war with Great Britain. 

The question on the final passage of the bill was carried by a majority 
of eleven votes ; several members of the opposition having voted in the 
affirmative. The bill was concurred in by the senate, and approved by 
the president. 

The British order of the 8th of June, 1793, designed to cut ofi" sup- 
plies from France, has been noticed. On the 6th of November, additional 
instructions were issued to the commanders of British ships of war and 
privateers, directing them " to stop and detain all ships laden with goods, 
the produce of any colony belonging to France, or carrying provisions or 
other supplies for the use of such colony, and to bring the same, with 
their cargoes, to legal adjudication in the courts of British admiralty." 
The American minister in England had no notice of these instructions 
until the last of December. Under this new order, American vessels 
engaged in French West India trade, were, without previous notice, 
seized, carried into British West India ports, and some of them con- 
demned. 

The intelligence of these instructions increased the excitement against 
Great Britain ; and war was considered a probable event. On the 12th of 
March, Mr. Sedgwick moved a series of resolutions, proposing to raise a 
military force of 15,000 men, to be brought into actual service only in 
case war should break out ; and to be drilled, in the mean time, not 
exceeding twenty-four days in a year, for which they were to receive half 
a dollar per day. One of the resolutions authorized the president to 
lay an embargo for forty days, if he should deem it necessary. The 
majority, however, determined to resume the consideration of Mr. Madi- 
son's commercial regulations. A debate ensued, no less animated than 
the first ; but the house came to no decision. 

It was now urged against this plan, that it was not adapted to the present 
emergency. In the event of a war it would be useless. Besides, it was 
a measure upon which the public sentiment was not sufficiently united. 
Its tendency was to provoke war, and to prevent that unanimity in which 
the strength of the country consisted. 

In support of the resolutions, it was said, that they could do no harm, 
even in case of war ; as they would not prevent the adoption of any other 
measures that might be judged necessary. And in the negotiation of 



PROSPECTS OF WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 131 

peace, they would serve a valuable purpose as a basis for such nego- 
tiation. 

The indications of war were now strengthened by the appearance of 
what was said to be a speech of lord Dorchester at Quebec, on the 10th 
of February, to the deputation of a general council of the Western 
Indians, held at the rapids of the Miami. In this speech, a war between 
the United States and G-reat Britain was spoken of as probable. 

The resolutions of Mr. Sedgwick had been negatived ; but the subject 
was resumed on the 26th of March, and a substitute adopted, laying an 
embargo for thirty days, on all vessels in the ports of the United States, 
bound to any foreign place. This measure was intended to save our 
commerce from farther exposure to depredation, or to prevent a supply 
of the British forces in the West Indies. A bill was passed for fortify- 
ing certain ports and harbors ; and a report was adopted, providing 
an addition to the regular military force, of 25,000 men, and authorizing 
the requisition of 80,000 militia from the several states, to be ready to 
march at a moment's warning. 

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, having given notice of a resolution, 
declaring that " provision ought to be made for the indemnification of 
all citizens of the United States, whose vessels or cargoes had been seized 
and confiscated by any of the belligerent powers, contrary to the law of 
nations," Mr. Dayton moved a resolution for the sequestration of all 
debts due from American citizens to British subjects, and to compel 
their payment into the treasury as a fund for the proposed indemnification. 

This resolution was debated with great vehemence. The peace meas- 
ures of the government were severely reprobated, as manifesting a disre- 
gard of public sentiment in behalf of France, and as having encouraged 
Great Britain to new aggressions. The resolution was opposed as 
injurious to our credit, unjust, and of dangerous tendency. 

Before any question was taken on this proposition, information was 
received from Mr. Pinckney, our minister at London, that the British 
order of November 6th had been revoked by another of January 8th, 
instructing British cruisers to capture only those neutral vessels which 
were bound with the produce of the French islands on a direct voyage to 
Europe ; or whithersoever bound, if such produce belonged to French 
subjects ; thus leaving the direct trade to the French islands free to 
American vessels conveying the property of our own citizens. 

Mr Pinckney also communicated an explanation by lord G-renville, 
stating that the objects of the order of November 6th, were to prevent 
apprehended abuses from the St. Domingo fleets having sailed to the 
United States, and to favor a contemplated attack upon the French 
West India islands ; for which purposes the order was no longer neces- 



281^ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

sary. It was stated also, that no vessels were to be condemned under 
that order, if, on trial, they should not be found to have violated other 
laws. The concealment of the first order from our minister admitting of 
no justification, and both the orders being an infringement of neutral 
rights, the explanation was unsatisfactory. Nor did it allay the public 
excitement. The minority of the house, and all who refused to espouse 
the French cause, were represented as British partisans. One of the 
numerous facts illustrative of the state of the French feeling, at this 
period, is the following : In a report made by the secretary of state, 
Mr. Randolph, relative to the vexations of American commerce, by offi- 
cers and cruisers of the belligerent powers, said it was urged that the 
French privateers had harassed our trade no less than those of the British, 
and that France had violated her treaty with us. Although he had been 
long known as a devoted friend of France, his fidelity to the cause of 
France and liberty was suspected. 

Regulations more stringent than those contemplated by Mr. Madison's 
resolutions, being deemed necessary at the present juncture, Mr. Clark, 
of New Jersey, on the 7th of April, moved a resolution to prohibit all 
commercial intercourse with Great Britain, so far as respected the pro- 
ducts of Great Britain and Ireland, until her government should make 
compensation for injuries sustained by citizens of the United States from 
British armed vessels, and until the western posts should be given up. 
The favor with which this proposition was received, indicated its passage 
by the house ; and the equal division of parties in the senate rendered 
its rejection by that body doubtful. 

Determined to leave unemployed no means consistent with the national 
honor to prevent war — an event quite likely to follow the measure pro- 
posed — the president concluded to make an effort at negotiation. 
Accordingly, on the 16th of April, he nominated to the senate John Jay 
as envoy extraordinary of the United States, to Great Britain. This 
nomination was opposed, because the mission was deemed impolitic and 
unnecessary ; also because he was a judge of the supreme court, and was 
withal considered too friendly to Great Britain, having, while secretary of 
foreign affairs, stated certain infractions of the treaty of peace on the part 
of the United States. The nomination was confirmed, however, 18 to 8. 

The discussion of Clark's resolutions was continued. They were op- 
posed on the ground that they would be an obstacle to negotiation — that 
they manifested a partiality toward one of the belligerents, incompatible 
with a state of neutrality. On the other hand it was urged that the 
measure could not lead to war ; and it would facilitate instead of embar- 
rassing negotiation. The condition on which the intercourse was to be 
restored — the surrender of the western military posts — having been 
etruek out, the resolutions were adopted, 58 to 38. A bill conforming to 



PROSPECTS OF WAH WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 133 

the same was passed by the house by the same vote ; but was defeated 
in the senate by the casting vote of the vice-president. 

As the success of Mr. Jay's contemplated mission was considered 
doubtful, and as a state of war was likely to follow the failure of nego- 
tiation, it was deemed proper to prepare for such event, by carrying into 
effect the measure previously reported. The raising of 25,000 more was 
negatived. The proposed detachment of the 80,000 minute-men, and 
other necessary preparations for war were authorized. Additional taxes 
would of course become necessary. But in selecting the objects of tax- 
ation there was a difference of opinion. The bill, as passed, imposed ad- 
ditional duties on imports, taxes on pleasure carriages, snuff, refined 
sugar, on sales at auction, and on licenses for retailing liquors. It re- 
ceived much opposition. A direct tax, (land tax,) had been reported by 
the committee, and had some strenuous advocates among the opposition 
members. It was declared to be a less objectionable tax than any other. 
They were in favor of raising the whole sum by direct taxes and duties 
on imports. The tax on carriages was pronounced unconstitutional ; and 
its payment was afterward refused in Virginia, until the question was 
decided by the supreme court of the United States. 

At this session, a second inquiry into the official conduct of the secre- 
tary of the treasury, was moved by Mr. Giles, the mover in the former 
case. The motion was agreed to without opposition, Mr. Hamilton him- 
self being known to desire the inquiry. After a laborious investigation 
by the committee, of which Mr. Giles was the head, no cause of censure 
was found. The result was deemed the more honorable to the secretary, 
as the inquiry was conducted by his political opponents. 

A law was also passed, prohibiting the exercise, within the United 
States, of the powers assumed by Genet, of enlisting men and arming 
vessels, setting on foot military expeditions against nations at peace with 
the United States, and authorizing the president to employ force in 
executing the laws. Notwithstanding the favorable responses of both 
houses to that part of the president's speech at the opening of the session, 
relating to his efforts to maintain neutrality, this bill met with a 
determined opposition. It originated in the senate, where it was saved 
only by the casting vote of the vice-president. In the house, as in the 
senate, motions were made to strike out some of its clauses deemed most 
essential ; and with respect to that which prohibited the condemnation 
and sale, within the United States, of prizes of the subjects of nations 
at peace with us, the motion was successful. This law is still in force. 

On the 9th of June, the third congress closed its first session, and ad- 
journed to the first Monday of November. The most important events 
that occurred in the intermediate time, were the defeat of the western 
Indians by General Wayne, and the suppression of the " whisky insur- 



(34 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

rection," so called, in western Pennsylvania, which have been mentioned 
in a preceding chapter. 

The release of a number of American vessels captured under the 
British order of November 6th, together with a declaration by lord 
Grenville in the British parliament, of friendly designs toward the 
United States, and the disavowal, by that government, of having en- 
couraged Indian hostilities, slightly checked the popular indignation, 
and encouraged the hope of a peaceable settlement of the disputes be- 
tween the two countries. 

Mr. Jay embarked on his mission on the 1 3th of May. He was re- 
garded by his political friends as eminently qualified for the trust con- 
fided to him. For purity of character, disinterested patriotism, sound 
judgment, and diplomatic experience, he was probably unsurpassed. 
But, although hopes were indulged of an amicable adjustment of the 
difficulties with Great Britain, these hopes were moderated by her well 
known unwillingness to relinquish any advantage, of which she had re- 
cently given fresh evidence by her obstinate refusal to enter into a com- 
mercial treaty. The principal objects of the mission were, restitution 
for spoliations of American commerce, and the fulfillment of the treaty 
of peace. These two objects obtained, a treaty of commerce was then 
to be proposed. 

The instructions to Mr. Jay acquit the president of the charge of un- 
friendliness to France and partiality for Great Britain. As it was 
deemed not improbable that the British government would offer induce- 
ments to the United States to dissolve their alliance with France, Mr. 
Jay was instructed to say " that the United States would not derogate 
from their treaties and engagements with France." To the same effect 
were the instructions to Mr. Monroe, our minister to France, appointed 
soon after Mr. Jay's departure. Secretary Randolph, in his letter of 
instructions, says : " The president has been an early and decided friend 
of the French revolution ; and whatever reasons there may have been to 
suspend an opinion upon some of its important transactions, yet is he 
immutable in his wishes for its accomplishment. * * * From Messrs. 
Genet and Fauchet we have uniformly learned that France did not desire 
us to depart from neutrality ; and it would have been unwise to ask us 
to do otherwise. For our ports are open to her prizes, while they are 
shut to those of Great Britain ; and supplies of grain could not be for- 
warded to France with so much certainty, were we at war, as they can 
oven now, notwithstanding the British restrictions. We have therefore 
pursued neutrality with faithfulness. We mean to retain the same line 
of conduct in future ; and to remove all jealousy as to Mr. Jay's mission 
to London, you may say that he is positively forbidden to weaken the 
engagements between this country and France " 



DECLINE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES. 35 



CHAPTER X. 

DECLINE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES. FUNDING SYSTEM CONSUMMATED. 

RESIGNATION OF HAMILTON AND KNOX. THE JAY TREATY. TREATIES 

WITH SPAIN AND ALGIERS. MONROE RECALLED. 

Congress had adjourned to the 3d of Novemlber,1794; but no quomm 
appeared in the senate until the 18th. 

In his address, delivered the next day, the president gave a detailed 
account of the insurrection in Pennsylvania, and of the measures taken 
to reduce the insurgents to submission ; and he strongly intimated that, 
in tracing the origin and progress of the insurrection, it would be found 
to have "been fomented by combinations of men, who, careless of conse- 
quences, and disregarding the unerring truth, that those who rouse, can 
not always appease a civil convulsion, have disseminated, from an igno- 
rance or perversion of facts, suspicions, jealousies, and accusations of the 
whole government." By the " combinations of men," were meant the 
democratic societies formed under the auspices of Genet. 

The senate, in answer, responded to the opinion of the preside^nt as to 
the effects of these " self-created societies," whose proceedings tended to 
disorganize our government, and had " been instrumental in misleading 
our fellow-citizens into the scene of insurrection." This part of the 
address, however, was not adopted without strong opposition. The 
answer of the house made no allusion whatever to this subject, nor to the 
success of G-en. Wayne, nor to the foreign policy of the executive ; all of 
which were approved by the senate. The interference with the proposed 
commercial regulations, by the appointment of a minister to England, 
was presumed to be the cause of the omission to notice the last of the 
subjects mentioned. 

The thrust of the president at the democratic societies produced con- 
siderable excitement, and perhaps contributed to accelerate their decline, 
which, however, was owing chiefly to causes before mentioned. Robes- 
pierre was overthrown ; and his clubs were unable to maintain the con 
test for supremacy with the French convention. A vindication of the 
clubs would have been nothing less than opposition to the government 
of France ; a position which the republicans of the United States did 
not wish to assume. Hence the societies soon disappeared. It ought 
perhaps to be here stated, that the president's unfavorable opinion of these 
societies was not wholly occasioned by their attacks upon his administra- 
tion. Judge Marshall saya •' So early as 1786, in a letter to a favorite 



136 rHE AMEraoAN statesman. 

nephew, who had engaged with the ardor of youth in a political society. 
Gen. Washington stated, in decided terms, his objections to such insti- 
tutions, and the abuses of which they were peculiarly susceptible." 

The president again called the attention of the house to the subject 
of the public debt, and recommended the adoption of a " definitive plan 
for its redemption." On the 15th of January, Mr. Hamilton reported a 
plan for this purpose, and forcibly urged its adoption. He said there 
was " danger to every government from a progressive accumulation of 
debt. A tendency to it is perhaps the natural disease of all govern- 
ments; and it is not easy to conceive any thing more likely than this to 
lead to great convulsive revolutions of empires. * * * There is a 
general propensity in those who administer the affairs of government, 
founded in the constitution of man, to shift ofi" the burden from the pre- 
sent to a future day ; a propensity which may be expected to be strong 
in proportion as the form of the state is popular." At whom the follow- 
ing remarks were aimed, the house could not fail to understand. " To 
extinguish a debt which exists, and to avoid contracting more, are ideas 
almost always favored by public feeling and opinion ; but to pay taxes 
for the one or the other purpose, which are the only means to avoid the 
evil, is always more or less unpopular. Hence it is no uncommon specu- 
tacle to see the same man clamoring for occasions of expense, when they 
happen to be in unison with the present humor of the community, well 
or ill directed, declaiming against a public debt, and for the reduction 
of it ; yet vehement against every plan of taxation, which is proposed to 
discharge old debts, or to avoid new ones by defraying the expenses of 
exigencies as they emerge." 

An act conforming nearly to the plan reported was passed. It estab- 
lished a sinking fund, consisting of the surplus revenues, of bank divi- 
dends, and the proceeds of the sales of public lands ; together with a few 
other items. The permanent appropriation of the duties on domestic 
spirits and on stills, being strongly objected to, these temporary taxes 
were to be continued only till 1801 ; the others were permanently pledged 
to the payment of the public debt ; for which purpose this fund was to 
be vested, as property in trust, in the commissioners of the sinking fund. 
By this act was consummated the funding system of the secretary of the 
treasury, under which the whole national debt was ultimately extin- 
guished. 

On the 31st of January, 1795, Mr. Hamilton resigned, and was suc- 
ceeded by Oliver Wolcott, of Connecticut. Gen. Knox had resigned on 
the first day of the month, and Timothy Pickering, of Massachusetts, 
then postmaster-general, was appointed as his successor. He was suc- 
ceeded by Joseph Habersham, ol Georgia, as postmaster-general. 



THE JAY TREATY. 1&7 

On the 3d of March, the constitutional term of the third congress 
expired. This session was less distinguished for the number of its 
important acts — though some of them were really such — than for the 
warmth and acrimony of its debates. 

On the 7th of March, 1795, the president received " a treaty of amity, 
commerce, and navigation, between his Britannic majesty and the United 
States," which had been concluded by Mr. Jay and lord Grenville, on 
the 19th of November. On the 8th of June, the treaty was submitted 
to the senate, specially convened for this purpose. The first .of the two 
primary objects of negotiation, namely, indemnity to American merchants 
for the illegal capture of their property under British orders, was secured 
by the treaty. The second of these objects was partially attained. The 
western posts were to be surrendered by the 1st of June, 1796. The 
negroes carried away by the British commander not being deemed by the 
British negotiator of a class to which the prohibition of the treaty 
applied, no compensation for them was allowed. The British creditors 
were to be compensated for losses caused by laws of any of the states 
obstructing the collection of debts contracted prior to the revolutionary 
war. 

The citizens of each country were to enjoy the right to hold and con- 
vey lands in the territories of the other. Debts contracted, or engage- 
ments made by the citizens of the one with those of the other, were not to 
be impaired in case of national differences. Free trade with the Indians, 
except within the limits of the Hudson's bay company; and the free use 
of the Mississippi river, were to be enjoyed by both parties. So far, the 
provisions of the treaty were to be permanent. 

The other articles, relating to commerce and navigation were limited 
to two years after the termination of the existing European war, and in 
any case, to a term not exceeding twelve years. In the trade between the 
United States and the British dominions in Europe and the East IndieSj 
the vessels and cargoes of each party were to be admitted into the ports 
of the other, on terms of equality with the most favored nation ; the 
British government reserving the right to countervail American discri- 
minating tonnage and import duties. A direct trade with the British 
West -Indies was permitted in American vessels of a burden not exceed- 
ing seventy tons, and in the products of the United States and those of 
the islands. But this privilege, restricted as it was, was only to be 
obtained by yielding the right of carrying molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa, 
or cotton, either from the United States, or the islands, to any other 
country. 

The treaty also enumerated certain articles which were to be deemed 
contraband of war. Provisions and other articles not usually contraband, 



138 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

if tliey should at any time become so, according to the law ci nations, 
were not to be confiscated, but paid for by the captors or the government. 
Vessels having made prizes of the property of the citizens of either party, 
were not allowed a shelter in the ports of the other ; but this privilege 
was to be enjoyed by the ships of war, or privateers of the contracting 
parties 

The treaty was far from meeting the wishes either of the president, or 
of the senate ; yet, considering the tenacity with which Great Britain 
clung to a* system to which she owed her commercial importance, more 
favorable terms could hardly have been expected. The most objection- 
able provision was that in the 12th article, which related to the West 
India trade. Among the commodities, the carrying of which to Europe 
in American vessels was to be prohibited, was cotton. This article, of 
which the United States had scarcely produced a supply for home con- 
sumption, had just begun to be exported ; a fact said to have been un- 
known to Mr. Jay. As this product was soon to become one of the 
principal exports from this country, and as the relinquishment of the 
right to transport the other articles above mentioned, was a sufl&cient 
sacrifice for the restricted West India trade allowed by the treaty, the 
£ enate concluded to exclude this provision in the ratification, and reconv 
mended the addition of a clause suspending its operation ; leaving for 
future negotiation, this q^ucstion, with that of the impressment of Ameri- 
can seamen, and others, upon which the parties had been unable to come 
to a satisfactory agreement. In this shape, the senate, by a vote of 20 
to 10, a bare constitutional majority, advised the ratification. 

The president, considering the defects of the treaty to be overbalanced 
by its advantages, had resolved to ratify it, if it should be approved by 
the senate. This determination was also approved by the members of 
the cabinet, with one exception. But the recommendation, by the senate, 
of the suspending clause, required consideration. It was not clear to 
the mind of the president, that the senate could advise and consent to an 
article that had not been laid before them ; or that he could ratify the 
treaty until the proposed clause had been added. The doubts of the 
president, however, were soon removed. But before signing the treaty, 
an additional cause of delay arose. It was stated in English papers, 
though not officially, that the order of the 8th of June, 1793, for the 
seizure of provisions going to French ports, had been renewed. Great 
Britain, it will be recollected, claimed the right of making provisions 
contraband, with a view to reduce an enemy. This right the American 
government did not concede, except in cases of blockade. The president, 
therefore, deferred for a time the execution of his design, and directed a 
memorial to th"" British government against this order to be prepared. 



THE JAY TREATY. 1 39 

together with instructions to our minister to continue negotiations upon 
matters yet unadjusted. He then (July 15th) left for Mount Vernon. 

No preceding measure of the administration, probably, encountered a 
more furious opposition than this. Public meetings were held, not only 
in the cities, but in country towns, to condemn the treaty. Essays were 
written, in which it was closely scrutinized and severely reprobated. In 
Philadelphia, an attempt was made to burn Mr. Jay and the ratifying 
senators in effigy ; and copies of the treaty were carried before the doors 
of the British minister, British consul, and Mr. Bingham, a senator who 
had voted for its ratification, and burned amid the huzzas of the multi- 
tude. Subsequently, in Boston, an effigy of Mr. Jay was burned in the 
street. 

The president returned to Philadelphia on the 11th of August; and 
the next day the question of ratification was brought before the cabinet. 
Mr. Randolph, who had before recommended a suspension of the ratifi- 
cation until the provision order should be repealed, now gave it as his 
opinion that the treaty ought not to be ratified while the war continued 
between Great Britain and France. The other three members concur- 
ring with the president in the expediency of immediate ratification, with 
a memorial against the provision order, the treaty, with the suspension 
clause, was signed on the 14th, and Mr. Randolph was directed to com- 
plete the memorial and instructions, then remaining unfinished. This 
course was successful. The order was revoked, and the ratifications of 
the treaty were exchanged. 

It was hoped by the president, that the ratification of the treaty 
would check the violence with which it had been assailed. But it seemed 
rather to increase the bitterness of the opposition. To weaken the sup- 
port which the treaty was known to derive from the president's personal 
popularity, his merits as a soldier and statesman were disparaged. His 
private character did not escape detraction. He was accused of having 
overdrawn the amount of salary, and appropriated the money to his 
private use. In authorizing the negotiation of a treaty without pre- 
viously consulting the senate, he had violated the constitution, for which 
he ought to be impeached. 

Notwithstanding the increased virulence of the opposition, the number 
of the friends of the treaty also appeared to increase. The commercial 
community generally were in its favor. Public meetings were held in 
many parts of the country. Reflecting men, governed by judgment 
rather than partisan zeal, sustained the administration. Commerce, 
notwithstanding the restrictions under which it labored, was rapidly in- 
creasing ; and it was deemed unwise to jeopard the public prosperity by 
a course of policy likely to result in a war, which, though perhaps justi- 
fiable, was not indispensable to the maintenance of the national honor. 



140 TliE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

During the ensuing fall and winter, the subject of tl^e treaty was in- 
troduced into the legislatures of a majority of the states, for the purpose 
of condemnation or approval. In one or two only of these states, it is 
believed, did resolutions disapproving the treaty pass both houses. By 
the legislature of Virginia, resolutions were adopted proposing several 
amendments to the constitution, abridging the power of the senate, and 
reducing the term of office to three years ; and reqiiiring the concurrence 
of the house of representatives in making treaties ; but we are not aware 
that the proposition met with a favorable response in any state : by 
several of the state legislatures they were discountenanced by a formal 
vote. 

lu August, 1795, Mr. Randolph resigned the office of secretary of 
state, and that of attorney-general was vacated by the death of Mr. 
Bradford. Both these offices continued vacant until the next annual 
meeting of the senate. On the 10th of December, Timothy Pickering, 
secretary of war, by whom the duties of secretary of state also had been 
performed, was appointed to the head of the state department ; and 
Charles Lee, of Virginia, was on the same day appointed attorney- 
general. On the 27th of January, 1796, James M'Henry, of Maryland, 
was appointed secretary of war, in the place of Mr. Pickering. 

On the 3d of August, 1795, a satisfactory treaty was concluded with 
the north-western Indians. 

On the 27th of October, after a negotiation of about fifteen years, a 
treaty was also concluded with Spain ; by which the claim of the United 
States as to the Florida boundary, and the right to a free navigation of 
the Mississippi river, were both conceded. In defining neutral rights, 
the treaty, as that with France, provided that provisions and naval stores 
were not to be deemed contraband, and that free ships should make free 
goods. And compensation was to be made to American citizens for 
property illegally captured by Spanish cruisers. 

A treaty of peace with the dey of Algiers was made on the 5th of 
September, and the American captives released from their cruel im- 
prisonment. The ransom of these prisoners was effected at an expense 
of about one million of dollars. 

The fourth congress met on the 7th of December, 1795. In his 
speech, delivered the next day, the president congratulated the country 
on the restoration of peace with the western Indians ; on the favorable 
advices from Algiers and Spain, the treaties not having as yet been re- 
ceived ; and on the general internal tranquillity, the rapid increase of 
population, and the unexampled prosperity of our agriculture, commerce, 
and manufactures, the molestations of our trade having been over- 
balauced by the aggregate benefits derived from a neutral position. The 



PRESENTATION OF THE FRENCH COLORS. 141 

decision of the British government with respect to the amended treaty, 
being yet unknown, would be communicated when received. Subjects 
of legislation to which he called the attention of congress, were, a review 
of the military establishment, a more complete organization of the militia, 
and more effectual provisions for the protection of the Indians from the 
violence of the lawless part of our frontier inhabitants, as being neces- 
sary to prevent destructive retaliations by the Indians. 

The answer of the senate, expressing their approval of the foreign 
policy of the president, was adopted, 14 to 8. 

In the house, the answer reported by the committee, declared the un 
diminished confidence of the people in the president. This declaratioc 
was objected to as untrue ; and before a direct vote was taken upon it 
the address was recommitted, and so modified as to render it acceptable 
to the majority, which, as in the last preceding house, was opposed to 
the administration. The treaty with Great Britain, though not directly 
disapproved, was treated in a manner indicating the sense of the majority. 

On the first of January, 1796, an occurrence of some interest took 
place at the seat of government. Mr. Monroe, it will be recollected, 
was appointed minister to France in the summer of 1794. Soon after 
his arrival, he presented to the national convention the flag of the United 
States, as a token of the friendship and good will of his country toward 
the French republic. Fauchet having been recalled, Adet, his successor, 
who arrived in the United States in June, 1795, was directed to recip- 
rocate this expression of friendship, by presenting to the American 
government the flag of France. This ceremony had been delayed until 
the first of January, when the flag was publicly delivered to the presi- 
dent, with a letter from the French committee of safety, expressing the 
joy with which they had received the declarations which the American 
minister had made of the friendly dispositions of his government toward 
the French republic. 

In his address to the president, Mr. Adet said France recognized the 
people of the United States as " friends and brothers. Long accus- 
tomed to regard them as her most faithful allies, she sought to draw 
closer the ties already formed in the fields of America, under the 
auspices of victory, over the ruins of tyranny." 

The president, in reply, expressed his sympathies and those of his 
fellow-citizens for the people of France, and congratulated them on the 
recent substitution of a republican constitution for the revolutionary 
government, and concluded thus : " I receive, sir, with lively sensibility, 
the symbol of the triumphs and of the enfranchisements of your nation, 
the colors of France, which you have now presented to the United 
States. The transaction will be announced to congress, and the colors 



1 42 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

will be deposited with the archives of the United States, which are at 
once the evidence and the memorials of their freedom and independence : 
may these be perpetual ! and may the friendship of the two republics be 
commensurate with their existence !" 

The colors of France, and the letter of the committee of safety, with 
the address of Adet, and the president's answer, were all transmitted to 
congress. 

On the 1st of March, 1796, the president sent to the house a copy of 
the treaty with Great Britain which had been returned, in the form ad- 
vised by the senate, ratified by his Britannic majesty, with the informa- 
tion that the treaty had been proclaimed as the law of the land. The 
debate to which this communication gave rise was exceedingly animated. 
Upon no other measure of the administration, perhaps, had the public 
mind been more sensibly agitated, or party passion raised to a higher 
pitch. It was viewed by many as virtually a question of peace or war ; 
and what gave it additional importance was, that it involved the consti- 
tutional questions, ivhether the assent of the house was essential to the 
obligation of a treaty^ and whether the president had a right to negotiate 
a treaty of commerce. 

The first discussion arose upon a motion of Edward Livingston, of 
New York, to request the president to lay before the house a copy of 
his instructions to Mr. Jay, with the correspondence and other docu- 
ments relating to the treaty. Several days afterward, the resolution 
was amended by the mover, by adding, " excepting such of the papers 
as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed." The 
propriety of this call was questioned by the minority, unless there was 
an intimation to impeach the president or Mr. Jay. But the principal 
topic of discussion was the nature and extent of the treaty-making 
power ; or the right of the house to refuse the means of carrying a 
treaty into efi"ect. 

It was argued by the friends of the administration, that a treaty was 
complete, according to the constitution, when, by the advice and consent 
of the senate, it had received the signature of the executive; and that 
the non-compliance, on the part of the house, with its stipulations, was 
a breach of a solemn contract, and a violation of the public faith. On 
the other hand, it was maintained, that the power to make treaties, if 
extended to every object, would interfere with the constitutional powers 
of congress. Hence, treaties requiring the appropriation of money, or 
any other act of congress to carry them into efi"ect, could not have force 
without consent of the house ; therefore the refusing of such appropria- 
tion or law was no violation of an existing obligation. The debate was 
continued until the 24th of March, when the resolution was adopted, 62 
*q 37. 



DISCUSSION ON THE JAY TREATY. 143 

The president was now placed in a delicate situation. The house, not 
having been made by the constitution a part of the treaty-making power, 
had no right to demand the papers relating to the negotiation. To com- 
ply with the call would be to concede this right, and to establish a 
dangerous precedent. A non-compliance, on the contrary, would increase 
the popular clamor against the administration, and confirm the suspicions 
of many, that there were facts connected with the negotiation which the 
president feared to expose. As there was nothing in the whole affair 
which he wished to conceal — indeed all the papers affecting the negotia- 
tion had already been laid before the senate — the question was simply 
one of popularity or duty. 

The answer declining a compliance with the call, was returned on the 
30th of March. After disclaiming " a disposition to withhold any thing 
which the constitution has enjoined it upon the president as a duty to 
give, or which could be required of him by either house of congress as a 
right," he proceeds to argue the question : " The nature of foreign nego- 
tiations requires caution, and their success often depends on secrecy. 
The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for 
vesting the power of making treaties in the president, with the advice 
and consent of the senate, the principle on which that body was formed 
confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in 
the house of representatives to demand, and to have, as a matter of 
cour!>c, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power, would 
be to establish a dangerous precedent. * * * 

" Having been a member of the general convention, and knowing the 
principles on which the constitution was formed, I have ever entertained 
but one opinion upon this subject ; and from the first establishment 
of the government to this moment, my conduct has exemplified that 
opinion : That the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the 
president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, provided 
two-thirds of the senate concur ; and that every treaty so made and pro- 
mulgated, is thenceforward the law of the land. It is thus that the 
treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations : and in all the 
treaties made with them, we have declared, and they have believed, that, 
when ratified by the president, with the advice and consent of the senate, 
they became obligatory. In this construction of the constitution, every 
house of representatives has heretofore acquiesced ; and until the present 
time, not a doubt or suspicion has appeared to my knowledge, that this 
construction was not the true one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced ; 
for until now, without controverting the obligation of such treaties, they 
have made all the requisite provisions for carrying them into effect." 

In confii mation of this construction, the president refers to the deli- 



144 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

berationa of the state conventions on tlie constitution, in wliicli it was 
objected to that instrument, that in certain treaties the concurrence of 
both houses was not required. Proof was also found in the concession 
by the general convention, to the small states of an equal representation 
in the senate, and investing this body at the same time with the treaty- 
making power. And he refers also to the journals of the convention, 
from which it appears that a proposition, " that no treaty should be 
binding on the United States which was not ratified by a law," was 
rejected. 

" As, therefore," said the president in conclusion, " it is perfectly clear 
to my understanding, that the assent of the house of representatives is 
not necessary to the validity of a treaty ; as the treaty with Great- Bri- 
tain exhibits within itself all the objects requiring legislative provision ; 
and on these the papers can throw no light ; and as it is essential to the 
due administration of the government, that the boundaries fixed by the 
constitution between the different departments should be preserved ; a 
just regard to the constitution, and to the duty of my office, under all 
the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request." 

On the 6th of April, this message was referred to a committee of the 
whole, and two resolutions were moved by Mr. Blount, of North Caro- 
lina, the first of which disclaimed the right of the house to interfere in 
making treaties, but asserted the right to carry into effect, or not, any 
treaty stipulations on subjects committed by the constitution to congress; 
the second affirmed that the house was not bound to give any reasons for 
a call upon the executive for information. These resolutions were car- 
ried, 57 to 35. 

On the 13th of April, copies of the treaties with Spain, Algiers, and 
the north-western Indians, having been previously communicated to the 
house, Mr. Sedgwick moved, " that provision ought to be made by law 
for carrying into effect, with good faith, " the treaties concluded with 
the dey and regency of Algiers, the king of Great Britain, the king of 
Spain, and certain Indian tribes north-west of the Ohio." The object 
of the mover in joining all these treaties in one motion, was not attained. 
The motion was divided, and the question taken upon the treaties separ- 
ately. Resolutions declaring it expedient to carry into effect the other 
three treaties having been adopted, that relating to the British treaty 
was taken up. 

The debate in committee of the whole commenced on the 15th of 
April, and continued until the 29th. Speeches were made by more than 
thirty members. Among the opponents of the treaty whose names are 
most conspicuous, were Mr. Madison, by whom the debate was opened, 
and Mr. Gallatin, who had just commenced his public career, as a repre- 



DISCUSSION ON THE JAY TREATY. 145 

sentative from the insurrection district in western Pennsylvania He 
had been previously chosen a senator in congress ; but on its being ascer- 
tained that he had not been nine years a citizen of the United States, he 
was excluded from his seat in that body. He had taken the lead in the 
debate on the call for the instructions, and was the most prominent and 
effective speaker against the treaty. 

To do justice to the principal participators in this celebrated debate, 
would require the transfer, to our pages, of more copious extracts from 
their speeches, than our prescribed limits will permit. The grounds on 
which the treaty was opposed and supported, are thus summarily stated 
by Pitkin : 

" The objections of those opposed to carrying the treaty into effect, 
were generally, that it wanted reciprocity ; that it gave up all claim of 
compensation for negroes carried away contrary to the treaty of peace, 
and for the detention of the western posts; that it contravened the 
French treaty, and sacrificed the interest of an ally to that of Great 
Britain ; that it gave up, in several important instances, the law of 
nations, particularly in relation to free ships making free goods, cases of 
blockade, and contraband of war ; that it improperly interfered with the 
legislative powers of congress, especially by prohibiting the sequestration 
of debts ; and that the commercial part gave few if any advantages to 
the United States. 

" On the other hand it was urged, the treaty had been constitutionally 
made and promulgated ; that a regard to public faith and the best inter- 
ests of the country, under all the circumstances, required that it should 
be carried into effect, although not in all respects perfectly satisfactory ; 
that it settled disputes between the two governments of a very long 
standing, of a very interesting nature, and which it was particularly im- 
portant for the United States to bring to a close ; that provision was 
also made for a settlement of those of a more recent date, not less affect- 
ing the sensibility as well as honor of the country, and in which the 
commercial community had a deep interest ; that in no case had the law 
of nations been given up ; that the question as to provisions being con- 
traband, although not settled, was left as before the treaty ; that the 
conventional rights of France were saved by an express clause. And as 
to the sequestration of private debts, it was said to be contrary to every 
principle of morality and good faith, and ought never to take place ; that 
the commercial part would probably be mutually beneficial, was a matter 
(?f experiment, and was to continue only two years after the close of the 
war in Europe : that, in fine, on the part of the United States, the only 
choice left was treaty or war." 

The ability and eloquence displayed on this question, have seldom been 

10 



146 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

surpassed in that body. It was near the close of the debate, that the 
celebrated speech of Fisher Ames in favor of the treaty was delivered. 
As a specimen of eloquence, this speech has been considered by many as 
almost unrivaled. Immediately after it was concluded, numerous calls 
were made for the question ; but the opposition members, unwilling to 
have the vote taken under the immediate influence of the speech, post- 
poned the question until the next day, (April 29,) when it was carried, 
in committee of the whole, by the casting vote of the chairman, (Muhlen- 
burg,) who, though belonging to the opposition, did not wish to take the 
responsibility of deciding the question, as the resolution would still be 
subject to amendment in the house. In the house, after an ineffectual 
attempt so to amend the resolution, as to declare the treaty " highly 
objectionable," it was carried, 51 to 48. [Appendix, Note B.] 

Never, perhaps, have greater efforts been made to sustain or defeat a 
measure than in the present instance. Public meetings were held in all 
quarters of the union ; and petitions from all classes of the people were 
poured in upon the house to back up the speeches of their representatives. 
The prospect of a defeat of the treaty had alarmed the merchants. 
Indeed its effects upon commerce were already felt. And the petitions 
from this influential class of men, in all the great commercial cities, bad 
no slight share in producing the final result. 

This was the last measure of much importance that engaged the atten- 
tion of congress at the present session, which was terminated on the first 
of June. 

Thomas Pinckney, minister at London, having previously requested 
a recall, was succeeded by Rufus King, who was appointed the 20th of 
May, 1796. 

The French government having been officially informed that the pre- 
sident had ratified the treaty with Great Britain, the minister of foreign 
affairs, in February, 1796, informed Mr. Monroe that the directory, (the 
executive power under the new constitution, consisting of five persons,) 
considered the alliance between the United States and France terminated 
by Jay's treaty ; that Adet was to be recalled, and a special envoy was 
to be sent to make the announcement to the American government. A 
few days afterward, Mr. Monroe was presented with a list of the com- 
plaints preferred by the French government against the United States. 

The most prominent subject of complaint against the United States 
was, that in their treaty with Great Britain, they had abandoned the 
principle, that free ships should make free goods, and that naval store* 
and provisions were made contraband. By the treaties of the United 
States with France and Great Britain, French property in American 
vessels was liable to seizure by British cruisers, while British goods were 



MONROE RECALLED. 147 

secure in American vessels. This, however, was no just ground of com- 
plaint. Great Britain had only reserved a right to which she was en- 
titled by the law of nations ; whereas, France, supposing it to be more 
for her interest, had preferred a different principle, which unforeseen 
events had rendered disadvantageous. 

The French government was reminded of the decree of the convention 
issued in May, 1793, in direct violation of this very stipulation of the 
treaty. Under this decree, about fifty American vessels had been cap- 
tured and deprived of their cargoes, which were yet unpaid for. Nearly 
twice that number had been detained at Bourdeux. 

De la Croix had intimated to Mr. Monroe, in February, that the 
directory had determined on some retaliatory measures. Encouraged to 
believe that the house of representatives would defeat the treaty by 
withholding the means of carrying it into effect, the contemplated 
measures were for the time delayed. News of the decision of the house 
of representatives reached Paris in June ; and on the 2d of July, the 
directory issued a decree, that " all neutral or allied powers shall, with- 
out delay, be notified, that the flag of the French republic will treat 
neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, or capture, in the 
same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them." 

It is supposed to have been the purpose of France, with the aid of 
Spain and Holland, to defeat the operation of the treaty. In August, 
1796, France and Spain entered into a treaty of alliance, offensive and 
defensive, by which they guarantied to each other all their possessions, 
and agreed to make common cause to ensure " safety to the neutral 
flag;" in other words, to compel the United States to protect French 
and Spanish property in American vessels, in contravention of the treaty 
stipulation with Great Britain. Accordingly, Spain also, instigated 
probably by France, complained to the American government of the un- 
equal footing upon which she had been placed by the British treaty, and 
made this a pretext for not delivering up the posts on the Mississippi 
and running the southern boundary line. 

Holland also, then dependent on France, remonstrated against the 
United States permitting the property of her citizens to be taken from 
American vessels. Said the minister of foreign affairs to John Quincy 
Adams, then minister in that country : " When circumstances oblige our 
commerce to confide its interests to the neutral flag of American vessels, 
it has a right to insist that that flag be protected with energy, and that 
it be not insulted at the expense of a friendly and allied nation." And 
he intimated that the United States ought to make common cause with 
the French republic. Mr. Adams, writing to the American government, 
said he had received intimations of a secret purpose of the French 



148 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

government to defeat, if possible, the treaty lately concluded between the 
United States and Great Britain. 

With the view to this object, probably, was the attempt afterward 
made to separate the people of the west from the union, and to induce 
them to join with Spain in forming a new empire. The western people 
having, since the first attempt at separation, obtained the free navigation 
of the Mississippi, this new project met with little favor. 

The president was not fully satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Monroe 
at the French court. The principal ground of dissatisfaction was the 
want of promptitude in making to that government the explanations 
furnished him by the president in justification of the treaty with Great 
Britain. It was suspected that the delay had been occasioned by his 
reluctance to justify a measure which he disapproved. The president at 
first determined to associate with Mr. Monroe a minister extraordinary, 
in order to insure a more efficient representation of the views of the ad- 
ministration. But perceiving, upon reflection, that the constitution 
authorized him only to fill vacancies during the recess of the senate, and 
not to appoint additional officers, he concluded to recall Mr. Monroe ; 
and on the 9th of September, 1796, appointed in his place Charles 
Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, brother of Thomas Pinckney 
late minister to Great Britain. 



CHAPTER XI. 

WASHTNGTON DECLINES ANOTHER REELECTION. HIS LAST ANNUAL MES 

SAGE. MR. PINCKNEY EXPELLED FROM FRANCE. ELECTION OF ADAMS 

AND JEFFERSON. 

As a few months only were to intervene before a new election of chief 
magistrate was to be made, the public attention had already begun to be 
directed to the selection of candidates for that office. It was generally 
supposed to be the determination of the president to decline being again 
a candidate. Notwithstanding the unscrupulous efibrts, not only to 
render his administration odious, but to shake the public confidence in 
Washington himself, he still retained the affections of the great mass of 
the people. His retirement at the present juncture would, it was 
feared, expose the national policy just established to great hazard. Of 
hia reelection, should he be a candidate, there was no reasonable doubt. 



Washington's op n on of jefferson. 149 

The success of any other person of the same political party, -was doubt- 
ful ; and even if elected, it was by no means certain that his personal 
popularity could impart to his administration sufficient strength to with- 
stand the powerful and determined opposition which it was destined to 
encounter. 

Hence Washington was strongly urged by many of his friends to 
change his purpose, and once more to consent to sacrifice his individual 
ease and happiness for the public welfare. Ardently as he desired a re- 
lease from the cares and responsibilities of public life, induced, probably, 
by the pressing solicitations of his friends, he delayed, for the present, 
the announcement of his intention to decline. In the mean time, un- 
scrupulous efibrts were kept up, not only to turn the popular sentiment 
against his policy, but to weaken his hold on the affections of the people. 
No artifice was supposed to be more likely to effect this object, than to 
represent him as friendly to England and inimical to France. 

It will be recollected that the president addressed to the members of 
his cabinet a series of questions for their consideration, prior to the 
meeting at which it was decided to issue the proclamation of neutrality. 
A number of essays appeared in the Aurora, in one of which these 
queries were inserted, and made the subject of bitter denunciation. 
" Perfidy and ingratitude," it was said, "were stamped on their front." 
They were " a stupendous monument of degeneracy. It would almost 
require the authenticity of holy writ to persuade posterity that they 
were not a libel ingeniously contrived to injure the reputation of the 
savior of his country." 

This document being strictly confidential, it could have become public 
only by a betrayal of confidence. Mr. Jefferson, to free himself from 
suspicion, immediately wrote a letter to the president, assuring him of 
his own innocence. The president, in answer, said he did not suspect 
him of having given the queries publicity. He was, however, " at no 
loss to conjecture from what source they flowed, through what channel 
they were conveyed, nor for what purpose they and sianilar publications 
appeared." [The " source" here alluded to, was probably Mr. Kandolph.] 
The letter proceeds to say : 

" As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would not be frank, 
candid, or friendly, to conceal, that your conduct has been represented 
as derogating from that opinion I conceived you entertained of me ; 
that to your particular friends and connections you have described, and 
they have denounced me, as a person under a dangerous influence ; and 
that if I would listen more to some other opinions, all would be well. 
My answer invariably has been, that I had never discovered any thing 
in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions in my mind of his 



150 THE i-.MERICAN STATESMAN. 

sincerity ; that if he would retrace my public conduct while he was in 
the administration, abundant proof would occui" to him, that truth and 
right decisions were the sole objects of my pursuit ; that there were as 
many instances within his own knowledge of my having decided against 
as in favor of the person evidently alluded to, (Hamilton ;) and more- 
over, that I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics or measures 
of any man living. In short, that I was no party man myself ; and that 
the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them. 

" To this I may add, that until the last year or two, I had no concep 
tion that parties would, or even could, go the lengths I have been witness 
to ; nor did I believe, until lately, that it was within the bounds of 
probability — hardly within those of possibility — that while I was using 
my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, inde- 
pendent as far as our obligations and justice would permit, of every 
nation of the earth ; and wished, by steering a steady course, to preserve 
this country from the horrors of a desolating war ; I should be accused of 
being the enemy of one nation, and subject to the influence of another ; 
and to prove it, that evei-y act of my administration would be tortured, 
and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentations of them be made, 
by giving one side only of a subject, and that, too, in such exaggerated 
and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero — to a no- 
torious defaulter, or even to a common pick-pocket. 

" But enough of this ; I have already gone further in the expression 
of my feelings than I intended." 

This letter would seem to indicate a suspicion, on the part of Wash- 
ington, that Jefferson was secretly endeavoring to impair the public con- 
fidence in him. This suspicion subsequent events tended to strengthen 
and confirm. Among these was the appearance the next year, of a letter 
written by Mr. Jefferson, in April, 1796, to P. Mazzei, a foreigner, and 
which had found its way back to this country. The letter as it first ap- 
peared in the papers, being, as Mr. Jefferson alleged, an imperfect 
translation, we give it as corrected by himself. 

" My dear, friend : The aspect of our politics has wonderfully 
changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and 
republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, 
an Anglican monarchical and aristocratic party has sprung up, whose 
avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already 
done the forms, of the British government. The main body of our 
citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles : the whole 
landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents. Against 
us are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the 
legislature, all the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, 



W*SHINGTON DECLINES ANOTHER REELECTION. 15 i 

all timid men wlio prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of 
liberty, British merchants, and Americans trading on British capitals, 
speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance in- 
vented for the purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us in all 
things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model. It 
would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have 
gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and 
Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the 
harlot England. In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have 
obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve 
it ; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great, as to 
leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have 
only to awake, and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been 
entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors. It 
suffices that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude and in- 
justice toward France, from which they would alienate us, to bring ua 
under British influence." 

Such a letter from one with whom he had long sustained the most 
intimate and friendly relations, private and official — accusing him of 
antagonism to republican principles, and of codperating with a monarchical 
party to change the government — characterizing his administration as 
" the calm of despotism," and representing its measures as " contrivances 
invented for the purposes of corruption" — gave Washington great pain, 
and greatly marred, if it did not terminate, the friendship which had so 
long subsisted between these two eminent and esteemed individuals. 

A principal object of Washington's opponents was to induce the belief 
that he was inimical to France, and friendly to Great Britain. In 1 777, 
a number of forged letters were published, purporting to have been writ- 
ten by him in 1776, to certain friends, and containing expressions in 
opposition to the cause of independence, and favorable to Great Britain. 
The calumny was revived by the republication of these letters ; and as 
he treated it with silence, the genuineness of the letters was, to some 
extent, and for a time, believed. To prevent future injury to his politi- 
cal character, on the day of his retirement from office, (March 3, 1797,) 
he addressed to the secretary of state, a letter, solemnly declaring the 
letters " a base forgery," and detailing circumstances proving them to be 
such ; and concluding with a i ec^ucst, that the present letter might be 
deposited in the office of the state department "as a testimony of the 
truth to the present generation, and to posterity." 

Having fully determined to decline another election, the president 
announced his determination in a valedictory address to the people of 
the United States which bears date September IGth^ 1796. This 



1 52 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

address ccntains iBummary of the political maxims by which he had 
been governed in tha conduct of his administration, and the observance 
of which he deemed indispensable to the future safety and welfare of the 
nation. [Note, page 995.] 

Washington having explicitly declined a reelection, the federalists 
united upon John Adams and Thomas Pinckney as their candidates for 
president and vice-president ; and the republicans supported Mr. Jeffer- 
son and Aaron Burr. The struggle was a very ardent and a bitter one. 
The feelings, not only of the American people, but of foreigners, espe- 
cially the French, were deeply enlisted in it. The French minister was 
more than a concerned spectator to the contest. Just before the election 
he sent a communication to the secretary of state, containing a repetition 
of the various accusations against our government, of bad faith, of in- 
justice, and of ingratitude towards France. The object of this letter ai 
this particular time, was sufficiently disclosed by its being sent, at the 
same time, to the Aurora newspaper for publication. This extraordinary 
diplomatic letter concludes thus : 

" Alas ! time has not yet demolished the fortifications with which the 
English roughened this country, nor those the Americans raised for their 
defense : their half rounded summits still appear in every quarter, 
amidst plains, on the tops of mountains. The traveler need not search 
for the ditch which served to encompass them ; it is still open under his 
feet. Scattered ruins of houses laid waste, which the fire had partly 
respected, in order to leave monuments of British fury, are still to be 
found. Men still exist, who can say, here a ferocious Englishman slaugh- 
tered my father ; there my wife tore her daughter from the hands of an 
unbridled Englishman. Alas ! the soldiers who fell under the sword of 
the Britons are not yet reduced to dust : the laborer, in turning up his 
field, still draws from the bosom of the earth their whitened bones ; while 
the ploughman, with tears of tenderness and gratitude, still recollects 
that his fields, now covered with rich harvests, have been moistened with 
French blood. While every thing around the inhabitants of this country 
animates them to speak of the tyranny of Great Britain, and of the gen- 
erosity of Frenchmen ; when England has declared a war of death to 
that nation, to avenge herself for its having cemented with its blood the 
independence of the United States ; — it was at this moment their govern- 
ment made a treaty of amity with their ancient tyrant, the implacable 
enemy of their ancient ally. Oh, Americans, covered with Loble scars ! 
Oh, you who have so often flown to death and to victory with French 
soldiers ! you who know those generous sentiments which distinguish the 
true warrior ! whose hearts have always vibrated with those of your com- 
panions in arms ! consult them to-day to know what they experience;, 



WASHINGTON'S LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE. 153 

■Recollect, at the same time, that if magnanimous souls with liveliness 
resent an aiFront, they also know how to forget one. Let your govern- 
ment return to itself, and you will still find in Frenchmen faithful friends 
and generous allies." 

Adet also announced in this letter the orders of the French directory 
to suspend his ministerial functions with the federal government. This 
act, however, was not intended " as a rupture between France and the 
United States, but as a mark of just discontent which was to last until 
the government of the United States returned to sentiments and to 
measures more conformable to the interests of the alliance, and the sworn 
friendship between the two nations." After the manner of Genet, he 
denounces the government, but flatters the people. " Notwithstanding 
the wrongs of the government^'' he says, " the directory do not wish to 
break with a people whom they love to salute with the appellation of a 
friend." 

It is but justice to the discreet and reflecting men of the opposition 
party, tQ say, that they disapproved this interference, on the part of a 
foreign minister, in the election of a chief magistrate ; and we are in- 
formed that it appeared to have had no sensible effect upon the election. 

About the same time, there appeared in the same newspaper, an order 
from Adet, in the name of the French directory, to Frenchmen in the 
United States, to wear the tri-eolored cockade ; which was accordingly 
done, not by Frenchmen only, but by many of our own citizens. 

Congress met on the 5th of December, 1796 ; and on the 7th, Wash- 
ington addressed the legislature for the last time. The adjustment of 
difficulties with the Indians, with Great Britain, Spain and Algiers, and 
the pending negotiations with Tunis and Tripoli, were made subjects of 
communication. To secure respect to our neutral flag, and to protect 
our trade to the Mediterranean, he recommended the gradual creation 
of a navy. The encouragement of manufactures, agriculture, the arts 
and sciences, was also commended to the attention of congress. In 
adverting to our relations with France, the president said : " Our trade 
has suffered, and is suffering, extensive injuries in the West Indies from 
the cruisers and agents of the French republic ; and communications 
have been received from its minister here, which indicate the danger of 
a farther disturbance of our commerce, by its authority, and which are, 
in other respects, far from agreeable." He expressed the wish to con- 
tinue to maintain cordial harmony and a friendly understanding with 
that nation, and cherished the " expectation that a spirit of justice, can- 
dor, and friendship, on the part of the republic, would eventually insure 
success." 

The following is the concluding paragraph of his speech • " The situ- 



154 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the repre- 
sentatives of the people of the United States, naturally recalls the period 
when the administration of the present form of government commenced ; 
and I can not omit the occasion to congratulate you and my country on 
the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplications to 
the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and the Sovereign Arbiter of nations, 
that his providential care may still be extended to the United States ; 
that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved ; and that 
the government which they have instituted for the protection of their 
liberties may be perpetuated." 

The answers of both houses were such as could not fail to be gratify- 
ing to the president. That of the house, however, was not adopted with- 
out considerable opposition. From the draft, as reported by the com- 
mittee, Mr. Griles moved to strike out several whole paragraphs, one of 
which was the following : " And while we entertain a grateful conviction 
that your wise, firm, and patriotic administration has been signally con- 
ducive to the success of the present form of government, we can not 
forbear to express the deep sensations of regret with which we contem- 
plate your intended retirement from office." 

Mr. Giles would not admit that the administration had been wise and 
firm. It was from a want of wisdom and firmness that we were brought 
into our present critical situation. He did not regret his retirement 
from office. He hoped he would retire to his country-seat and enjoy all 
the happiness he could wish ; and he believed he would enjoy more there 
than in his present situation. He believed there were a thousand men in 
the United States, who were capable of filling the presidential chair as 
well as it had been filled heretofore. The motion of Mr. Giles to strike 
out was lost. 

Objection was also made to the words, " the spectacle of a whole 
nation, the freest and most enlightened in the world." The excep- 
tion taken to this expression is presumed to have been on the ground of 
its giving to this country, in respect to freedom and intelligence, the pre- 
cedence of France. It was amended so as to read, " the spectacle of a 
free and enlightened nation." 

A motion was also made to strike out the concluding sentence : " For 
our country's sake ; for the sake of republicanism, it is our earnest wish 
that your example may be the guide of your successors, and thus, after 
being the ornament and safeguard of the present age, become the patri- 
mony of our descendants." The motion failed. Of the twenty-four who 
voted for it, were Gallatin, Giles, Andrew Jackson, Edward Livingston, 
and Macon. On the question of adopting the address, the yeas and nays 
were called for by a member of the opposition. Among the twelve who 
voted in the negative, were Giles, Jackson, Livingston, and Macon. 



MR. PINCKNEY EXPELLED FROM FRANCE. 155 

In contrast with the answer of the two houses of congress to the speech 
of the president, and with the popular sentiment of the nation, we pre- 
sent an extract from an article which appeared a few days after in the 
Philadelphia Aurora, a violent opposition paper. " If ever a nation was 
debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by "Wash- 
ington. If ever a natior has been deceived by a man, the American 
nation has been deceivncJ -^y Washington. Let his conduct, then, be an 
example to future ages. Let it serve to be a warning that no man may 
be an idol. Let the history of the federal government instruct mankind 
that the mask of patriotism may be worn to conceal the foulest designs 
against the liberties of the people." 

As has been stated, the object of Mr. Pinckney's mission was to make 
full explanations to the French government of the conduct of the admin- 
istration towards France, for the purpose of restoring harmony between 
the two countries. On the 19th of January, 1797, the president trans- 
mitted to congress a full and minute statement of the controversy with 
France ; in which all her complaints were noticed, and her conduct, and 
that of her ministers, as well as that of our own government, carefully 
reviewed ; and in which the latter was successfully vindicated. This 
exposition of our affairs with France was in the shape of a letter to Mr. 
Pinckney, designed to aid him in making a proper representation of the 
subject to the French government. And that the American people 
might have a correct view of this exciting controversy, the letter and the 
accompanying documents were made public. 

Mr. Pinckney arrived at Paris about the 1st of December, 1796. On 
the 9th, Mr. Monroe presented his letter of recall, and Mr. Pinckney his 
letter of credence. Two days after, the minister of foreign affairs in- 
formed Mr. Monroe, that the directory would " no longer recognize a 
minister plenipotentiary from the United States, until after a reparation 
of the grievances demanded of the American government, and which 
the French government had a right to expect." Mr. Pinckney addressed 
a note to the French minister, inquiring whether it was intended that he 
should quit the republic. The minister, (De la Croix,) considering a 
direct communication with Mr. Pinckney an acknowledgment of him as 
minister, sent one of his secretaries to inform him that such was the 
intention of the directory. For his own justification, Mr. Pinckney 
desired a written answer ; but obtained none until the last of January, 
when he received a written notice to quit the territory of the republic. 
He proceeded to Amsterdam to wait for instructions from his govern- 
ment. While at Paris, he was threatened with prosecution for a viola- 
tion of the law which prohibited foreigners from remaining there without 
special permission. But he insisted with firmness on the protection of 
the law of nations due to him as the known minister of a foreign power 



156 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

On the 8th of February, the electoral votes were opened and counted 
in the presence of both houses. Mr. Adams had received 71 votes, and 
Mr. Jefferson 69. Thomas Pinckney received 59 ; Aaron Burr, 30 ; 
Samuel Adams, 15; Oliver Ellsworth, 11 ; George Clinton, 7; John 
Jay, 5 ; scattering, 10. 

At the close of this session, March 3, 17.^T, terminated the adminis- 
tration of Washington ; during which all dis "l-Ics with foreign nations, 
except those with France, were adjusted ; credit was restored ; the pay- 
ment of the public debt was provided for ; commerce was prosperous ; 
agricultural products had a ready market ; exports and imports had been 
nearly tripled ; and the revenues exceeded all calculations. 

After attending the inauguration of his successor, which took place the 
next day, he departed for Mount Vernon, receiving on his journey marks 
of undiminished esteem and affection from his fellow-citizens. 

But these and numberless other unequivocal expressions of respect and 
feneration for the character of Washington did not shield him from 
detraction and calumny. His retirement furnished the occasion for at 
least one more assault of impotent malice through its accustomed chan- 
nel, the organ of the opposition at the seat of government. Scarcely had 
he taken his departure from Philadelphia, before the following, ascribed 
to a public functionary high in the confidence of the leaders of the oppo- 
sition, appeared in the Aurora : 

'' ' Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes 
havo seen thy salvation,' was the pious ejaculation of a man who beheld 
a floo i of happiness rushing in upon mankind. If ever there was a time 
which would license the reiteration of this exclamation, that time is now 
arrived ; for the man who is the source of all the misfortunes of our 
country is this day reduced to a level with his fellow-citizens, and is no 
longer possessed of power to multiply evils upon the United States. If 
ever there was a period for rejoicing, this is the moment. Every heart 
in unison with the freedom and happiness of the people, ought to beat 
high with exultation that the name of Washington from this day ceases 
to give a currency to political iniquity and to legalized corruption. A 
new era is now opening upon us — an era which promises much to the 
people; for public measures must now stand upon their own merits, and 
nefarious projects can no longer be supported by a name. It is a subject 
of the greatest astonishment, that a single individual should have carried 
his designs against the public liberty so far as to have put in jeopardy 
its very existence. Such, however, are the facts ; and with these staring 
us in the face, this day ought to be a jubilee in the United States !' 



TNATIGURATION OF MR. ADAMS. 157 



CHAPTER XII. 

INAUGURATION OF MR. ADAMS. RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. SPECIAL SES- 
SION. MEASURES OF DEFENSE. ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 

On the 4tii of March, 1797, John Adams was inaugurated president 
of the United States, in Congress Hall, at Philadelphia. Among the 
persons of distinction in attendance, were General Washington, the vice- 
president elect, the government officers, foreign ministers, members of 
congress, and many private citizens. After the address had been deliv- 
ered, the oath of office was administered by Oliver Ellsworth, chief- 
justice of the supreme court. 

Prominent members of the administration had been charged with 
disesteem for France, and a controlling sympathy for Great Britain, 
and a predilection for her form of government, especially for a more 
durable executive and senate than had been provided by the constitution. 
Mr. Adams availed himself of this occasion to disclaim these sentiments. 
He had, he said, first seen the constitution while in a foreign country, 
and had " read it with great satisfaction, as a result of good heads, 
prompted by good hearts, as an experiment better adapted to the genius, 
character, situation, and relations of this nation and country, than any 
which had ever been proposed or suggested." He had expressed his 
approbation of it on all occasions, in public and in private. It had never 
been any objection to it in his mind, that the executive and the senate 
were not more permanent. Having witnessed its successful operation, 
he had acquired an habitual attachment to it, and veneration for it. 

Having expressed his admiration of some of the leading features of 
the government, he proceeds : " The existence of such a government as 
ours for any length of time, is a full proof of a general dissemination of 
knowledge and virtue throughout the whole body of the people. And 
what object or consideration more pleasing than this can be presented to 
the human mind ? If national pride is ever justifiable, or excusable, it 
is when it springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from 
conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence. 

" In the midst of these pleasing ideas, we should be unfaithful to our- 
selves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties, if any 
thing partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, vir- 
tuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by 
a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through 
artifice or corruption, the government may be the choice of a party for 



.88 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

its own ends, not of the nation for the national good. If that solitary 
suflfrage can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by 
fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the government may 
not be the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It 
may be foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who 
govern ourselves. And candid men will acknowledge, that in such cases 
choice would have little advantage to boast of over lot or chance." 

The president then passed upon his illustrious predecessor the follow- 
ing truthful and appropriate encomium : 

" Such is the amiable and interesting system of government, and such 
are some of the abuses to which it may be exposed, which the people of 
America have exhibited to the admiration and anxiety of the wise and 
virtuous of all nations for eight years, under the administration of a citi- 
zen, who, by a long course of great actions, regulated by prudence, 
justice, temperance, and fortitude, conducting a people, inspired with 
the same virtue, and animated with the same ardent patriotism and love 
of liberty, to independence and peace, to increasing wealth and unex- 
ampled prosperity, has merited the gratitude of his fellow-citizens, com- 
manded the highest praises of foreign nations, and secured immortal 
glory with posterity. 

" In that retirement which is his voluntary choice, may he long live 
to enjoy the delicious recollection of his services, the gratitude of man- 
kind, the happy fruits of them to himself and the world, which are daily 
increasing, and that splendid prospect of the future fortunes of this 
country which is opening from year to year. His name may still be a 
rampart, and the knowledge that he lives, a bulwark against all open or 
secret enemies of his country's peace. His example has been recom- 
mended to the imitation of his successors by both houses of congress, and 
by the voice of the legislature and the people throughout the nation." 

His own principles and rule of action are thus expressed : 

" On this subject it might become me better to be silent, or to speak 
with diffidence ; but as something may be expected, the occasion I hope 
will be admitted as an apology, if I venture to say that if a preference, 
upon principle, of a free republican government, formed upon long and 
serious reflection, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after truth ; if 
an attachment to the constitution of the United States, and a conscien- 
tious determination to support it until it shall be altered by the judgment 
and wishes of the people, expressed in the mode prescribed in it ; if a 
respectful attention to the constitutions of the individual states, and a 
constant caution and delicacy toward the state governments ; if an equal 
and important regard to the rights, interest, honor, and happiness, of all 
the states in the union, without preference or regard to a northern or 



INAUOURATION OF MR. ADAMS. - 159 

southern, an eastern or western position, their various political opinions 
on essential points, or their personal attachments ; if a love of virtuous 
men of all parties and denominations ; if a love of science and letters, 
and a wish to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools, col- 
leges, universities, academies, and every institution for propagating 
knowledge, virtue, and religion, among all classes of the people, not only 
for their benign influence on the happiness of life in all its stages and 
classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the only means of preserving 
our constitution from its natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the 
spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and 
the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to 
elective governments ; if a love of equal laws, of justice, and humanity, 
in the interior administration ; if an inclination to improve agriculture, 
commerce, and manufactures, for necessity, convenience, and defense ; if 
a spirit of equity and humanity toward the aboriginal nations of America, 
and a disposition to ameliorate their condition by inclining them to be 
more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them ; if an 
inflexible determination to maintain peace and inviolable faith with all 
nations, and that system of neutrality and impartiality among the bel- 
ligerent powers of Europe which has been adopted by this government, 
and so solemnly sanctioned by both houses of congress, and applauded 
by the legislatures of the states and the public opinion, until it shall be 
otherwise ordained by congress ; if a personal esteem for the French 
nation^ formed in a residence of seven years chiefly among them, and a 
sincere desire to preserve the friendship which has been so much for the 
honor and interest of both nations ; if, while the conscious honor and 
integrity of the people of America, and the internal sentiment of their 
own power and energies must be preserved, an earnest endeavor to inves- 
tigate every just cause, and remove every colorable pretense of complaint; 
if an intention to pursue by amicable negotiation a reparation for the 
injuries that have been committed on the commerce of our fellow-citizens, 
by whatever nation, and if success cannot be obtained, to lay the facts 
before the legislature that they may consider what further measures the 
honor and interest of the government and its constituents demand ; if 
a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and 
to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence, with all 
the world ; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources 
of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all, and 
never been deceived ; if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this 
country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the 
moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people, deeply 
engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by 



i60 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

experience and age, and with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty 
to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call 
themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent 
respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public 
service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes ; it shall 
be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two houses 
shall not be without effect. 

" With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the 
faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people 
pledged to support the constitution of the United States, I entertain no 
doubt of its continuance in all its energy ; and my mind is prepared, 
without hesitation, to lay myself under the most solemn obligations to 
support it to the utmost of my power. 

" And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of order, 
the Fountain of justice, and the Protector, in all ages of the world, of 
virtuous liberty, continue his blessing upon this nation and its govern- 
ment, and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the 
ends of his providence !" 

No change was made in the cabinet, which then consisted of Timothy 
Pickering, secretary of state ; Oliver Wolcott, secretary of the treasury ; 
James M'Henry, secretary of war ; and Charles Lee, attorney-general. 
On the establishment of the navy department, the next year, Benjamin 
Stoddart, of Maryland, was appointed secretary of the navy; George 
Cabot, of Massachusetts, having been first appointed and declined. 

Our ministers at the principal foreign courts were the following : 
Rufus King, of New York, minister to Great Britain ; appointed May 
20, 1796. To France, Charles Colesworth Pinekney, of South Carolina, 
September 9, 1796. To Spain, David Humphreys, of Connecticut, May 
20, 1796. To Portugal, John Quincy Adams, May 30, 1796. To 
Netherlands, William Vans Murray, March 2, 1797. These were the 
only foreign countries to which missions had been established. A mission 
to Prussia was about this time created, and John Quincy Adams was 
appointed minister to that country, June 1, 1797 ; and his place in Por- 
tugal was supplied by the appointment of William Smith, of South 
Carolina. Mr. Smith was a member of the house, and had been, during 
the whole term of Gen. Washington's administration. He was a leading 
member of the administration party in that body. 

The relations of this country with France were, as stated in the pre- 
ceding chapter, in a critical condition ; our minister having been vir- 
tually expelled from that country, and new license having been given to 
spoliate on our commerce. A decree had been issued, authorizing the 
capture of neutral vessels having on board any productions of Great 



MEASURES OF DEFENSE. 161 

Britain or her possessions — a decree in direct violation of the rights of 
neutral nations, and especially of the treaty between France and the 
United States, providing that " free ships should make free goods." 
Numerous captures of American vessels were made under this decree, 
and most of the vessels were condemned. War being considered as not 
an improbable contingency, the president regarded the occasion as 
demanding a special session of the national legislature ; and accordingly 
convened congress on the 15th of May, 1797. 

Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey, was reelected speaker of the house. 
There were at this time, in both bodies, majorities in favor of the ad- 
ministration, and of the plan and purpose of convening congress at that 
particular juncture. A number of important measures were adopted, 
both for the preservation of peace, and for providing the means of defense. 

An act was passed to prevent American citizens from privateering 
against nations in amity with the United States ; an act prohibiting the 
exportation of arms and ammunition, and for encouraging their importa- 
tion ; an act to provide for the further defense of the ports and harbors 
of the United States ; an act authorizing a detachment from the militia 
of 80,000 men, to be in readiness to march at a moment's warning, and 
also authorizing state executives to accept independent corps ; also an 
act providing a naval armament. This act empowered the president, if 
he should deem it expedient, to cause the manning and employing of the 
three frigates, the United States, the Constitution, and the Constellation. 

To provide for the additional expenditures required by these measures 
of national defense, an act was passed for " laying duties on stamped 
vellum, parchment, and paper." Some of the duties imposed by this act 
were as follows : For every piece of either of these articles on which 
was written or printed a certificate of naturalization, five dollars ; for an 
attorney or solicitor's license to practice or a certificate of admission, 
ten dollars ; papers containing the seal of the United States, four 
dollars ; a certified copy of the same, two dollars ; for receipts, notes, 
and other ordinary business instruments, from twenty-five cents to one 
dollar, varying according to the amount for which they were given : in 
short, all kinds of business paper, insurance policies, inventories, protests, 
&c., &c., were liable to this duty. Another act imposed an additional 
duty on salt imported ; all drawbacks on salt exported to apply to the 
additional duty laid by the act ; and a farther allowance was made on salt 
provisions exported. 

Whatever may have been the justice or necessity of the duty on the 
stamped articles, the act was obnoxious to a large portion of the people. 
Both its title and its provisions resembled too much that memorabk 
measure of 1765, which was so unsavory to the colonial fathers. 

11 



/62 THfe AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

These war measures, however, were not intended to supersede farther 
attempts at negotiation. Congress being in session, the president nomi- 
nated to the senate, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Elbridge Gerry, and 
John Marshall, as envoys plenipotentiary to the French republic ; Mr. 
Pinckney being then m Holland. They met at Paris in October. They 
addressed a letter to the French minister of foreign affairs, in which 
they informed him of their appointment, and expressed their desire to 
wait on him at such an hour as he should please to appoint, to present 
their letters of credence. A verbal answer was returned naming the 
hour. 

A novel mode of correspondence with the American ministers was 
adopted. Unofficial persons were employed for this purpose, who used 
the letters, X, Y, Z, instead of their names ; as Mr. X, Mr. Y, Mr. Z. 
One of these individuals assured our ministers that Talleyrand had a 
great regard for America and her citizens, and desired a reconciliation ; 
and that to accomplish it, he (X) would suggest a plan which Talley- 
rand would probably approve; viz., that certain passages in the presi- 
dent's message to congress, being offensive to some members of the 
directory, should be softened, and that this would be necessary previous 
to their reception ; that a sum of money would be required for the 
pockets of the directory and ministers ; and that the United States 
should accommodate the French government with a loan. X could not 
point out the exceptionable passages of the president's speech, nor the 
amount of the loan which would be required ; but the doceur for the 
pocket was twelve hundred thousand livres — about fifty thousand pounds 
sterling. After some farther confereruie with X and Y, a second set of 
propositions was made. These propositions were wholly inadmissible ; 
one of which was, that the government of the United States should 
declare that a certain decree of the directory did not contain any thing 
contrary to the treaty of 1 778, and was not attended with any of the 
fatal consequences ascribed to it. Y at length remarked •: " But, gentle- 
men, I will not disguise from you, that this satisfaction being made, the 
essential part of the treaty remains to be adjusted: you must pay 
money ; you must pay a great deal of money.'''' 

To these demands, our ministers could not accede. The proposition 
for a loan in any form was not within the limits of their instructions ; 
and they proposed, that one of their number would forthwith embark 
for America to consult the government ; provided the directory would 
suspend all further captures of American vessels, aiwi all proceedings on 
those .plready captured, or which had not yet been disposed of. This 
was refused. 

At one of the conferences our ministers were told by X, that we had 



BELATIONS WITH FRANCE. 163 

paid money to obtain peace with the Algerines, and with the Indians , 
and that it was doing no more to pay France for peace. To which they 
answered, that " when our government commenced a treaty with either 
Algiers or the Indian tribes, it was understood that money was to form 
the basis of the treaty, and was its essential article ; . . . but that, in 
treating with France, our governmemt had supposed, that a proposition, 
such as he spoke of, would, if made by us, give mortal offense." Our 
ministers, in their report of this interview, farther say : " He asked if 
our government did not know, that nothing was to be obtained here 
without money. We replied, that our government had not even 
suspected such a state of things. He appeared surprised at it, and said 
that there was not an American in Paris who could not have given that 
information. * * * He stated that Hamburg and other states of Europe 
were obliged to buy a peace ; and that it would be equally for our in- 
terest to do so. Once more he spoke of the danger of a breach with 
France, and of her power, which nothing could resist. We told him it 
would be vain for us to deny her power, or the solicitude we felt to avoid 
a contest with it ; . . . but that one object was still dearer to us than 
the friendship of France, which was our national independence ; that 
America had taken a neutral station : she had a right to take it ; no 
nation had a right to force us out of it ; that to lend a sum of money 
to a belligerent power, abounding with every thing requisite for war but 
money, was to relinquish our neutrality, and take part in the war. To 
lend this money under the lash and coercion of France, was to relinquish 
the government of ourselves, and to submit to a foreign government im- 
posed upon us by force ; that we would make at least one manly struggle 
before we thus surrendered our national independence. * * * He said 
that France had lent us money during our revolutionary war, and only 
required that we should now exhibit the same friendship for her. We 
answered that the cases were very different ; that America solicited a 
loan from France, and left her at liberty to refuse it; but that France 
demanded it of America, and left us no choice on the subject. . . . 
There was another difference in the eases ; that the money was lent by 
France for great national and French objects : it was lent to maim a 
rival and an enemy whom she hated ; that the money, if lent by 
America, would not be for any American objects, but to enable France 
to extend still further her conquests. The public and private advance 
of money was pressed and repressed in a variety of forms. At length 
X said he did not blame us ; that our determination was certainly proper 
if we could keep it ; but he showed decidedly his opinion to be that wo 
could not keep it." 

Through the agency of Z., an interview was arranged with Talleyrand, 



164 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the minister of foreign relations, at wliicli Mr. Gerry only attended on 
the part of the United States ; and at -which Talleyrand presented the 
arret (decree) of the directory, in which the demand was again made of 
an explanation of parts of the president's speech to congress at the special 
session of the 16th of May. He was sensible difl&culties would exist 
relative to this demand ; " but that by our minister offering money, he 
thought he could prevent the effect of the arret." On being told by Z., 
at the request of Mr. Gerry, that the envoy had no such power, Talley- 
rand replied, that they could take such power on themselves, and pro- 
posed that they should make a loan. Mr. Gerry said, the uneasiness of 
the directory, caused by the president's speech, had no connection with 
the objects of the mission. Barras, in his speech to Mr. Monroe on his 
recall, had expressed himself in a manner displeasing to the government 
and citizens of the United States ; but it was not considered by our gov- 
ernment as a subject of dispute between the two nations. Having no 
instructions on this subject, they could make no explanations relating 
to it. 

It was subsequently proposed that, if our government would pay, by 
way of fees, the sum of money demanded for private use, although the 
directory would not receive the ministers, they might remain at Paris, 
and would be received by Talleyrand, until one of them could go to 
America, and consult our government concerning the loan. This singu- 
lar kind of diplomatic correspondence was continued until about the 
1st of November, when it was agreed by our ministers to hold no more 
indirect intercourse with the government. 

Under date of November 1 1 , they addressed the minister of foreign 
affairs, expressing regret at the loss or suspension of friendly intercourse 
between the two republics ; and the wish to restore it, and to discuss the 
complaints of both parties. No answer having been received, they trans- 
mitted to him, on the 17th of January, 1798, another letter, of great 
length, in which the whole controversy is reviewed. This review em- 
braces all the old subjects of dispute between the two governments, among 
which were the course of neutrality adopted by Washington ; the treaty 
agreement that " free ships should make free goods ;" the annoyance of 
our commerce under the rigorous decrees of France, &e. Neither did 
this letter receive a formal answer. Another interview, however, was 
had with Talleyrand, (March 2,) at which the proposition of a loan was 
again the subject of conversation. Our ministers having stated that this 
measure would amount to a declaration of war on our part against Great 
Britain, and that they were expressly forbidden by their instructions to 
take such a step ; Talleyrand argued that it would be no departure from 
neutrality to stipulate a loan payable after the war ; and suggested that 



RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. 165 

the transaction might be done secretly. Having failed in this artifice, 
he conceived another for compassing his end ; which was, to acknowledge 
some of our claims for property taken from American citizens, and then 
let our government give a credit as for the payment, say for two years ; 
by which act we would consent to leave in the hands of France funds 
which might be used in the prosecution of the war. This proposition 
also was declined by our ministers, who argued that such a transaction 
would be no less a loan than the one before suggested. 

On the 18th of March, our ministers received a written communica- 
tion from Talleyrand in answer to theirs of January 17. The ministers 
replied at length. The directory having intimated a disposition to treat 
with Mr. Gerry alone, (who had been selected from the party which was 
said to be friendly to France,) his two colleagues, as has been stated, 
returned to the United States. Mr. Grerry's consenting to remain in 
France was considered highly improper. 

On the 21st of June, 1798, president Adams transmitted to congress 
a letter from Mr. Gerry, with one from him to Talleyrand, and the 
reply of the latter. The president said in his accompanying message : 
" I presume that before this time he has received fresh instructions, (a 
copy of which accompanies this message,) to consent to no loans ; and 
therefore the negotiation may be considered at an end. I will never 
send another minister to Fi'ance, without assurances that he will be 
received, respected, and honored, as the representative of a great, free, 
powerful, and independent nation." 

The 2d session of the 5th congress, (being its first regular session,) 
terminated the 16th of July, 1798, having assembled on the 13th of 
November, 1797. A large number of acts were passed during this long 
session. Among the most important were the following : An act to pro- 
vide for an additional armament for the further protection of the trade 
of the United States, which authorized the president to equip an addi- 
tional number of vessels, not exceeding twelve, nor carrying more than 
twenty-two guns each ; an act for the increase of the army ; an act for 
the protection of the commerce and coasts of the United States ; an 
act for the defense of the forts and harbors ; an act to lay and collect a 
direct tax of $2,000,000, upon real estate and slaves. An act was also 
passed, to suspend commercial intercourse with France and her depend- 
encies. By this act vessels of the United States were prohibited from 
going to the dominions of France, or from being employed in trade with 
or for persons residing therein, on penalty of the forfeiture of the vessel 
and cargo. And French vessels were not allowed to enter or remain in 
the United States, without a passport from the president, or except in 
ease of distresa Another act was passed, to authorize the defense of our 



166 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

merchant vessels against French depredations. This act provided that 
the commanders and crews of American merchant vessels might oppose 
and defend them against search or seizure by the commanders and crews 
of armed vessels sailing under French colors. 

At this session was established the department of the navy. 

These preparations for war having been made, the public mind -wis 
soon directed to Gen. Washington, as the man to be placed at the head 
of the army ; and the intention of the president to appoint him was com- 
municated to him both by the president and the secretary of war, Mr. 
McHenry. In his answer to the secretary, after having animadverted 
upon the conduct of the French government, he says : " Under circum- 
stances like these, accompanied by an actual invasion of our territory, it 
would be diflScult for me, at any time, to remain an idle spectator under 
the plea of age or retirement. With sorrow, it is true, I should quit the 
shades of my peaceful abode, and the ease and happiness I now enjoy, to 
encounter anew the turmoils of war, to which, possibly, my strength and 
powers might be found incompetent. These, however, should not be 
stumbling-blocks in my own way." But before he could give a definitive 
answer, he wished to ascertain whether, after having anjiounced his final 
retirement, public opinion would approve his reappearance upon the pub- 
lic theater ; and whether it was the wish of the country that he should 
take the command. Also the army should be so appointed as to afford a 
well-grounded hope of its doing honor to the country and credit to th& 
commander. 

His reception of the letters of the president and secretary having been 
casually delayed, he had been nominated by the president to the chief 
command of all the armies, with the rank of lieutenant-general, and hit 
appointment unanimously consented to by the senate, before his answer 
reached the seat of government. The appointment was accepted, on con- 
dition that he might himself select the officers for the high departments 
of the army. Presuming his wishes would be acceded to, he recom- 
mended Alexander Hamilton, for inspector-general, who was to be next 
in command ; and for major-generals, Charles C. Pinckney and Henry 
Knox, or if either refused, Henry Lee. Others were named for briga- 
diers, adjutant-general, &c. 

Wise and proper as these defensive measures were generally regarded, 
under the threatening aspect of affairs, they met with a determined and 
vigorous opposition. Both in and out of congress were men whose af- 
fection for France, the most flagrant insults and injuries were insufficient 
to weaken. In congress were vice-president Jefferson, Gallatin, Giles^ 
Nicholas, Baldwin, Livingston, and others of no mean rank. The most 
conspicuous of those out of congress, were Madison and Monr je. 



RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. 167 

In March, 1798, resolutions were introduced into the house, declaring 
that a resort to war against France was, under existing circumstances, 
inexpedient ; and that the arming of merchant vessels ought to be re- 
stricted ; but they were in favor of fortifying the coast. In the debate 
on these resolutions, the opposition members* took strong ground for 
peace measures. Their opposition to measures of defense has been im- 
puted to the design of keeping the country in a condition which should 
compel the administration to accede to the propositions of France. The 
federal members contrasted the aversion of their opponents to a war with 
France, under the strongest provocations, with their eagerness to fight 
Great Britain, in 1794, for injuries far less aggravated. 

The president had been charged with improperly withholding a part 
of the correspondence with our ministers in France. Although it had 
been deemed inexpedient to communicate certain parts of it, especially 
the instructions to our envoys, of which it was not proper that France 
should be informed, while negotiation was pending, the majority, not- 
withstanding, assented to a call for all the papers, which were promptly 
communicated by the president. These papers were read by the parti- 
cular friends of France with feelings of disappointment and mortification. 
The unceremonious reception of our ministers, the manner of conducting 
the negotiation on the part of France, and the degrading terms upon 
which alone the directory would treat, placed that government in a very 
unfavorable light before the American people, and served in some degree 
to strengthen the administration. 

The indiscriminate publication of Mr. JcflFerson's correspondence since 
his death, has been deeply regretted by many of his warmest and most 
judicious friends, as tending to mar his well-earned popularity. The 
nature as well as the number of his private letters, shows him to have 
been a busy, though for the most part a secret actor in party afiairs. A 
letter addressed to Mr. Madison on the appearance of these despatches, 
represents him as still disposed to fix the wrong upon his own govern- 
ment, and as hoping that the efiect upon the public mind produced by 
their publication, will not be permanent. He says : " The first impres- 
sions with the people will be disagreeable, but the last and permanent 
one will be, that the speech in May is now the only obstacle to accom- 
modation, and the real cause of war, if war takes place. And how much 
will be added to this by the speech in November, is yet to be learned. 
It is evident, however, on reflection, that these papers do not offer one 
motive the more for our going to war. Yet such is their effect on the 
mind of wavering characters, that I fear that, to wipe off the imputation 
of being French partisans, they will go over to the war measures so 
furiously pushed by the other party." The "speech in May" here 



168 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

r 

referred to, is the message to congress at the extra or special session, 
which contained the language, to which, it will be recollected, the French 
directory took exceptions, and of which they demanded some explanation 
as one of the conditions on which they would treat. Information of the 
effect, upon that body, of the speech to congress in November, at the 
opening of the then present session, had not yet, it seems, (April 6,) been 
received. 

The deep concern felt by Mr. Jefferson is farther manifest from a sub- 
sequent letter to Mr. Madison, urging him to assist in defending the op- 
position from the effects of the publication of the dispatches. He wrote : 
" The public mind appears still in a state of astonishment. There never 
was a moment in which the aid of an able pen was so important to place 
things in their just attitude. On this depends the inchoate movement 
in the eastern mind, and the fate of the elections in that quarter, now 
beginning, and to continue through the summer. I would not propose 
to you such a task on any ordinary occasion ; but be assured that a well- 
digested analysis of these papers would now decide the future turn of 
things, which are at this moment on the careen." He had previously 
written to the same gentleman : " You will see in Fenno (publisher of 
the United States Gazette) two numbers of a paper signed Marcellus. 
They promise much mischief, and are ascribed, without any difference of 
opinion, to Hamilton. You must, my dear sir, take up your pen against 
this champion. You know the ingenuity of his talents, and there is not 
a person but yourself who can foil him. For Heaven's sake, then, take 
up your pen, and do not desert the public cause altogether." 

By the aid derived from the publication of the papers, the bills for the 
national defense yet pending were easily passed, the anti-war resolutions 
having been dropped. The popularity of the administration was rapidly 
increasing. The president received from all directions, and from numer- 
ous bodies and public assemblages, addresses approving his policy. 
Among the occurrences at Philadelphia, we give the following, as nar- 
rated by Hildrcth : " Besides an address from five thousand of the 
citizens, presented to the president, the young men adopted a separate 
address of their own, and went in a body to carry it, many of them 
wearing the black cockade, the same which had been worn in the Ameri- 
can army during the war of independence. This was done by way of 
defiance and response to the tri-colored cockade worn by all Frenchmen 
since Adet's famous proclamation, and by not a few American citizens 
also, even by some companies of militia, who wished to exhibit, by this 
outward sign, their extreme devotion to the French republic. Hence the 
origin of the term, ' Black Cockade Federalist,' which became ultimately 
an epithet of bitter party reproach. Such was the warmth of party 



ACTS PASSED AT SPECIAL SESSION. 169 

feeling, that several who wore the new emblem became the objiicts of 
violent personal assault. But the zeal for mounting was a good deal in- 
creased by the rage it inspired in the more violent democrats — a term 
restricted at this time to the warm partisans of France, and as yet 
chiefly employed by the federalists, along with the term Jacobin, as an 
epithet of reproach. The song of ' Hail, Columbia !' written by the 
younger Hopkinson, had, under the excitement of the moment, a 
tremendous run ; and, though totally destitute of poetic merit, is still 
kept in existence by the force of patriotic sentiment. ' Adams and 
Liberty,' written by Paine, of Boston, the son of another signer of the 
declaration of independence, though now almost forgotten, enjoyed, like 
'■ Hail, Columbia !' an immense popularity ; both songs being sung at 
the theaters and elsewhere with rapturous encores." 

An act was passed at this session " for the relief of sick and disabled 
seamen." This law required the master or owners of all vessels of the 
United States, arriving from a foreign port, to pay to the collector at 
the rate of twenty cents a month for every seaman employed on board 
such vessels ; which sum he was authorized to retain out of their wa,ges. 
The money thus collected was to be applied to the temporary relief of 
sick and disabled seamen. 

An act was also passed " for an amicable settlement of limits with the 
state of Georgia, and authorizing the establishment of a government in 
the Mississippi territory." Georgia, by virtue of the cession to her by 
South Carolina, claimed the whole territory east of the Mississippi river, 
and south of Tennessee. To the western portion of the same, the 
United States opposed a counter claim founded upon the treaty of 1783, 
by which Great Britain ceded it to the United States, and upon the 
subsequent treaty with Spain. 

The act provided a joint commission on the part of the general 
government and the state of Georgia, to adjust the conflicting claims to 
the territory west of the Chattahoochie river. All lands which should 
be ascertained to belong to the United States were to be disposed of, and 
the proceeds thereof applied to the payment of the public debt, as in the 
case of the territory north-west of the Ohio. And all the tract of 
country bounded by the Chattahoochie on the east and the Mississippi 
on the west ; and on the north by a line from the mouth of the Yazoo 
east to the Chattahoochie, and on the south by the 31st degree of north 
latitude, was to constitute one district to be called the Mississippi Terri- 
tory, which might thereafter, at the discretion of congress, be divided 
into two districts with separate territorial governments. The govern- 
ment of the territory was to be the same as that established in the 
north-western territory, except as to the restriction of slavery. The im- 



170 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

portation, however, of slaves into the territory from beyond the limits of 
the United States, vwis prohibitGd. The act contained a provision, that 
the establishment of this government should not impair the rights of 
Georgia or any person to the jurisdiction or the soil. Most of the 
measures of the administration hitherto had been popular ; and but for 
two certain acts passed at this session, ending in the summer of 1798, it 
is not improbable that the federal jjarty would have acquired a degree of 
strength that would have been irresistible, and have secured its perma- 
nent ascendency. The acts referred to are, " An act concerning aliens," 
and " An act in addition to the act, entitled, ' An act for the punish- 
ment of certain crimes against the United States.' " No one would 
suppose, from the mere titles of these acts, that they were the famed 
" alien and sedition laws" which have given to the year 1798 such polit- 
ical notoriety, and which contributed more, probably, than any other 
cause, to the overthrow of the federal party in 1800. As many readers 
are presumed to be unacquainted with the provisions of these laws which 
have incurred so much popular odium, an abstract of them is here given. 

Of the first mentioned of these two acts, the 1st section authorized 
the president to order all such aliens as he should judge dangerous to 
the peace and safety of the United States, or should have reasonable 
grounds to suspect were concerned in any treasonable or secret machina- 
tions against 'the government thereof, to depart out of the country with- 
in a given time, to be expressed in the order. Any alien so ordered tc 
depart who should, after the time limited for his departure, be f jund at 
large without a license from the president to reside in the United States, 
was liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years, and was never to 
be admitted to become a citizen. On satisfactory proof being given by 
an alien, that no injury or danger would arise from his residing here, the 
president might grant him a license to remain for such time and at such 
place as he should designate. The president might also require a bond 
with sureties for his good behavior. 

Section 2, authorized the president, whenever he deemed it necessary 
for the public safety, to remove out of the country all persons in prison 
in pursuance of the act, and all who had been ordered to depart, and re- 
mained without license. And on their return, they might be imprisoned 
so long aS; in the opinion of the president, the public safety might 
require. 

Section 3, required masters of vessels coming into ports of the United 
States, to report all aliens on board, the country from which they came, 
and the nation to which they owed allegiance, their occupation, a de- 
scription of their persons, &c., under a penalty of $300. 

Section 4, gave to the circuit and district courts of the United States 
cognizance of oifenses against the act. 



ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 171 

Section 5, secured to aliens the right of disposing of their property. 
Section 6, limited the act to the term of two years from its passage. 
All courts of the United States and of the several states, having crim- 
inal jurisdiction, were authorized, upon complaint against aliens or alien 
enemies at large, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and con- 
trary to the intent of the proclamation or other regulations established 
by the president, to cause them to be apprehended and brought before 
any such court, judge, or justice ; and after a full examination and hear- 
ing, and for sufficient cause appearing, to order their removal, or to re- 
quire sureties for their good behavior, or to restrain, imprison, or other- 
wise secure them, until the order should be performed. Marshals of the 
districts were to provide for their removal, and to execute the order for 
their apprehension, under a warrant of the president, or of a judge or 
justice. 

The act relating to " the punishment of certain crimes against the 
United States," or, as it is called, the " sedition law," provided that any 
persons unlawfully combining or conspiring together, to oppose any meas- 
ure of the government of the United States, or any of its laws, or to 
intimidate or prevent any officer under that government from under- 
taking or performing his duty ; and any persons, with such intent, coun- 
seling or attempting to procure any insurrection, riot, or unlawful com- 
bination, were to be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and punishable 
by a fine not exceeding $5,000, and by imprisonment not less than six 
months, nor exceeding five years ; and, at the discretion of the court, 
they might also be held to find sureties for their good behavior. 

But the provision deemed most objectionable, was the second section, 
which declared that any person who should write, print, utter or pub- 
lish, or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing, any false, scan- 
dalous, or malicious writing against the government, congress, or the 
president of the United States, with intent to defame them, or to bring 
them into disrepute, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or 
to excite any unlawful combinations for opposing or resisting any law 
of the United Siates, or any act of the president done in pursuance of 
any such law, or to resist or defeat any such law, or to aid or abet any 
hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their 
people or government, should be liable to be fined not exceeding $2,000, 
and imprisoned not exceeding two years. 

The act farther provided, that any person prosecuted for writing or 
publishing such libel, might, in his defense, give in evidence the truth of 
the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel ; and the jury 
had the right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of 
the court, as in other cases. This was an essentially mitigating provision 



172 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

of this obnoxious law. The English law of libel was at that time a part 
of the common law of this country. The defendant in a libel suit v/as 
not permitted to justify by proving the truth of the statement charged 
as libelous. Hence the common expression : " The greater the truth, 
the greater the libel." But this law allowed no conviction except in 
cases in which the defendant failed to furnish evidence of the truth of 
his statement. This provision, now incorporated into the laws or consti- 
tutions of all the states, had then been adopted only in the states of 
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Vermont. 

The act was to continue in force until the 3d of March, 1801, and no 
longer. 

These laws were intended to counteract the schemes of the unprin- 
cipled French directory, whose emissaries in this country abused the 
freedom of the press by defaming the administration, and exciting the 
opposition of the people to the government and laws of the union. They 
did not, however, accord with the disposition and liberal views of 
the American people. They were of doubtful expediency, even under 
the circumstances that gave rise to them. Much less toleration would 
they find at the present day. Yet when it is considered that these laws 
had the concurrence of a majority of both houses of congress and the 
executive, and were approved by Washington, Patrick Henry, and other 
wise and good men, it is to be presumed that there were some cogent 
reasons for their enactment. The seditious conduct of Genet alone fur- 
nished a powerful inducement for the adoption of some measure of this 
kind. But there were at that time many thousands of Frenchmen in 
this country combined in organized associations, which were believed to 
be dangerous to the peace of the United States ; and an equal or greater 
number of British subjects whose residence in this country was deemed 
unsafe at that particular juncture. 

tl ustice to the many good and patriotic men who approved these laws, 
requires us to add, that what were to be punished under the sedition act 
as offenses, were already punishable offenses at common law, in state 
courts ; and the federal courts were presumed to have common law juris- 
diction of the same offenses. Besides, similar laws had been enacted in 
some of the states, during the revolution, when unrestricted discussion 
was not at all times deemed compatible with national safety. 

These laws gave birth to the celebrated Virginia and Kentucky reso- 
lutions of 1798 and 1799, and to the doctrine of nullification. Astute 
politicians, as were the leaders of the opposition, readily saw that these 
laws might be turned into effective weapons against the administration, 
and the plan was adopted of obtaining the cooperation and influence of 
the state legislatures. At the request of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madisou, 



ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 173 

then a member of the Virginia legislature, introduced the resolutions 
adopted the 21st of December, 1798. These resolutions declared, (1.) 
That the constitution of the United States was a compact to which the 
states were parties, granting limited powers of government. (2.) That 
in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, 
not granted by the compact, the states had the right, and were in duty 
bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evils, and for main- 
taining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liber- 
ties pertaining to them. (3.) That the alien and sedition laws were 
palpable and alarming infractions of the constitution. (4.) That the 
state of Virginia, having by its convention, which ratified the federal 
constitution, expressly declared, that, among, other essential rights, the 
liberty of conscience and the press could not be canceled, abridged, 
restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States ; and from 
its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of 
sophistry and ambition, having with the other states recommended an 
amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed 
to the* constitution ; it would mark a reproachful inconsistency and 
criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most pal- 
pable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the 
establishment of a precedent which might be fatal to the other. (5.) 
That the state of Virginia declared the alien and sedition laws uncon- 
stitutional; solemnly appealed to the like dispositions in the other 
states, in confidence that they would concur with her in that declaration ; 
and that the necessary and proper measures would be taken by each, for 
cooperating with her, in maintaining unimpaired, the authorities, rights, 
and liberties, reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (6.) 
That the governor should be desired to transmit a copy of each of these 
resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a 
request that they should be communicated to the respective state legisla- 
tures, and that a copy should be furnished to each of the senators and 
representatives of Virginia in congress. 

These resolutions, however, did not go to the same extent as those 
drawn up by Mr. Jefferson himself, to be introduced by his friends intc 
the legislature of Kentucky, and which were passed in November, more 
than one month earlier than those of Virginia. These resolutions de- 
clared that the union was a compact between the states as states^ instead 
of the people of the several states, as held and frequently expressed by 
Madison since that time, by Jackson in his celebrated anti-nullification 
proclamation of 1832, and almost all other statesmen of note. They 
farther declared, " that, as in other cases of compact between parties 
having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for 



174 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress ;" 
thus denying the common doctrine, -which accords to the supreme court 
the ultimate right to judge whether a law is constitutional or otherwise : 
and, in conformity with these views of state rights, they declared the 
alien and sedition acts to be " not law, but altogether void, and of no 
force?'' And they farther made the broad assertion, " that in cases of 
an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general govern- 
ment being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the 
constitutional remedy ; but where powers are assumed which have not 
been delegated, a nullification of the act is the right remedy : and that 
every state has a natural right, in cases not within the compact, to nul- 
lify of their own authority, all assumptions of power by others within 
their limits." 

These resolutions also proposed a " committee of conference and cor- 
respondence," to be appointed by each state legislature, to obtain the 
concurrence of the co-states " in declaring these acts void and of no 
force, and each to take measures of its own for providing that neither 
these acts, nor any other of the general government, not plainly and in- 
tentionally authorized by the constitution, shall be exercised within their 
respective territories." The resolutions containing this last proposition 
being thought to go too far, they were so modified as to require their 
senators and representatives to lay the resolutions before congress, and 
to use their best endeavors to procure a repeal of the obnoxious acts at 
the next session ; and they also requested from other state legislatures 
the expression of their opinion in regard to these laws, and their concur- 
rence in declaring them void, and in requesting their repeal by congress. 

A full discussion of the question of nullification, will be found in the 
history of Jackson's administration, in subsequent chapters. 

Neither the Virginia resolutions, though accompanied by an address 
to the people in support of them, written by Mr. Madison, nor those of 
Kentucky, met with a favorable response in any other state. By the 
legislatures of the New England states. New York, and Delaware, they 
were expressly disapproved. They served, however, in a great degree, 
the purpose of their authors. 

The legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky, at their next sessions, 
replied to the answers of the state legislatures, and, in these replies, 
reasserted the doctrines of their resolutions. The reply of the legisla- 
ture of Virginia consisted of a very able report prepared by Mr. Madison, 
concluding with the following resolution : "That the general assembly, 
having carefully and respectfully attended to the proceedings of a number 
of the states, in answer to the resolutions of December 21, 1798, and 
having accurately and fully reexamined and reconsidered the latter, 



ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 175 

find it to be their indispensable duty to adhere to the same, as founded 
in truth, as consonant with the constitution, and as conducive to its pre- 
servation ; and more especially to be their duty to renew, as they do 
hereby renew, their protests against the alien and sedition acts, as pal- 
pable and alarming infractions of the constitution." The report and 
resolution were adopted in February, 1800. A few months thereafter, 
(June 25,) the alien law expired by its own limitation, and the sedition 
act on the 4th of March, ISOl. 

From an address on the death of Mr. Madison, written by John Quincy 
Adams, in 1836, by request of the two houses of congress, we give the 
following extracts, relating to the alien and sedition laws, and to the 
resolutions whose history is sketched above : 

"The agency of Mr. JeflFerson in originating the measures of both the 
state legislatures, was at the time profoundly secret. It has been made 
known since his decease ; but, in estimating the weight of the objections 
against the two laws on sound principles, as well of morals as of politics, 
the fact as well as the manner of that agency is observable. The situa- 
tion which he then held, and that to which he ascended by its operation, 
are considerations not to be overlooked in fixing the deliberate judgment 
of posterity upon the whole transaction. Mr. Madison's motives for the 
part which he acted in the drama, are not liable to the same scrutiny ; 
nor did his public station at the time, nor the principles which he asserted 
in the management of the controversy, nor the measures which he pro- 
posed, recommended and accomplished, subject his postliumous reputation 
and character to the same animadversions. Standing here as the sincere 
and faithful organ of the sentiments of my fellow-citizens to honor a 
great and illustrious benefactor of his country, it would be as foreign 
from the honest and deliberate judgment of my soul, as from the sense 
of my duties on this occasion, to profess my assent to the reasoning of 
his report, or my acquiescence in the application of its unquestionable 
principles to the two acts of congressional legislation, which it arraigns. 
That because the states of this union, as well as their people, are parties 
to the constitutional compact of the federal government, therefore the state 
legislatures have the right to judge of infractions of the constitution by the 
organized government of the whole, and to declare acts of congress uncon- 
stitutional, is as abhorrent to the conclusions of my judgment, as to the 
feelings of my heart : but holding the converse of those propositions with 
a conviction as firm as an article of religious faith, I too clearly see to 
admit of denial, that minds of the highest order of intellect, and hearts 
of the purest integrity of purpose, have been brought to difi"erent con- 
clusions. 

" If Jefferson and Madison deemed the alien and sedition acts plain 



176 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

and palpable infractions of the constitution, Washington and Patrick 
Henry held them to be good and wholesome laws. These opinions were 
perhaps all formed under excitements and prepossessions which detract 
from the weight of the highest authority. The alien act was passed 
under feelings of honest indignation at the audacity with which foreign 
emissaries were practicing,, within the bosom of the country, upon the 
^ssions of the people against their own government. The sedition act 
Tas intended as a curb upon the publication of malicious and incendiary 
slander upon the president or the two houses of congress, or either of 
them. But they were restrictive upon the personal liberty of foreign 
emissaries, and upon the political licentiousness of the press. The alien 
a^ct produced its eflFect by its mere enactment, in the departure from the 
eountry of the most obnoxious foreigners, and the power conferred by it 
upon the president was never exercised. The prosecutions under the 
sedition act did but aggravate the evil which they were intended to re- 
press. Without believing that either of those laws was an infraction of 
the constitution, it may be admitted without disparagement to the 
authority t)f Washington and Henry, or of the congress which passed 
the acts, that they were not good and wholesome laws, inasmuch as they 
were not suited to the temper of the people." 

Among the persons prosecuted under the sedition act was Matthew 
Lyon, a member of congress from the western part of Vermont. In a 
letter published in a Vermont paper, he had used the following 
language : " Whenever I shall, on the part of the executive, see every 
consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for 
power ; in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, 
and selfish avarice ; when I shall behold men of merit daily turned out 
of office, for no other cause but independency of sentiment ; when I 
shall see men of firmness, years, abilities, and experience, discarded in 
their applications for office, for fear they possess that independence, and 
men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and 
advocate opinions, the consequence of which they know but little of; 
when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a state engine 
to make men hate and persecute one another, I shall not be their humble 
advocate." A second count in the indictment charged him with making 
use of a letter of Joel Barlow, then in France in some diplomatic 
agency, written to a friend, then a member of congress, Abraham Bald- 
win, of Georgia. Barlow was a devoted friend of France, and a bitter 
opponent of the federal party ; and his letters to this country very 
severely berated the administration for non-compliance with the wishes 
of the French government. In this letter he indulged in strong cen- 
sures of the speech of the president to congress, and said, " we wondered 



DIFFICULTIES WITH FRANCE. • 177 

that the answer of both houses had not been an order to send him to a 
mad-house : instead of this, the senate have echoed the speech with more 
servility than ever G-eorge III. experienced from either house of parlia- 
ment." A third count in the indictment was for publishing and aiding 
in publishing the Barlow letter. 

Lyon was convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for four months, 
and to the payment of a fine of $1,000, a part of which was remitted in 
consequence of his pecuniary embarrassments. A petition said to have 
been signed by 3,000 republicans of Vermont was presented to the presi- 
dent for his liberation, which the president refused, unless Lyon himself 
should sign the petition. Disinclined to submission, he was compelled 
to suffer durance for the full term. During the pendency of the suit, 
he was reelected to congress. After his discharge from prison, he went 
to Philadelphia, and served out the remainder of his first term in 
congress. 

Assurances were given to Lyon, that when the republicans should 
obtain the ascendency in congress, he should be compensated for his suf- 
ferings. But for various causes, no relief had been granted, when, in 
1818, he again petitioned congress, being then a resident of Kentucky, 
and was again unsuccessful. In 1833, many years after his death, a law- 
was passed for refunding to his heirs the amount of the fine levied upon 
him by the sedition law. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

DIFFICULTIES WITH FK,ANCE. TREATY NEGOTIATED. DIVISION OP THE 

FEDERALISTS. PRESID*ENTIAL ELECTION. 

The 5th congress commenced its 3d session on the 3d day of Decern 
ber, 1798. The president, in his annual speech to congress, said the in 
formation received from France since the close of the last session, would 
be made the subject of a future communication ; from which it would 
appear that the attempt to adjust the differences with that power had 
failed. He proceeded : " You will at the same time perceive, that the 
French government appears solicitous to impress the opinion, that it is 
averse to a rupture with this country, and that it has in a qualified man- 
ner declared itself willing to receive a minister from the United States 
for the purpose of restoring a good understanding. It is unfortunate 

12 



178 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

for professions of this kind, that they should be expressed in terms 
•vrhich may countenance the inadmissible pretension of a right to pre- 
scribe the qualifications which a minister from the United States should 
possess, and that, while France is asserting the existence of a disposition 
on her part to conciliate with sincerity the diflferences which have arisen, 
the sincerity of a like disposition on the part of the United States, of 
which so many demonstrative proofs have been given, should even be in- 
directly questioned. It is also worthy of observation, that the decree 
of the directory alleged to be intended to restrain the depredations of 
French cruisers on our commerce, has not given, and cannot give, any 
relief. It enjoins them to conform to all the laws of France relative to 
cruising and prizes, while these laws are themselves the sources of the 
depredation of which we have so long, so justly, and so fruitlessly com- 
plained. 

" The law of France, enacted in January last, which subjects to cap- 
ture and condemnation neutral vessels and their cargoes, if any portion 
of the latter are of British fabric or produce, although the entire 
property belong to neutrals, instead of being rescinded, has lately re- 
ceived a confirmation by the failure of a proposition for its repeal. 
While this law, which is an unequivocal act of war on the commerce of 
the nations it attacks, continues in force, those nations can see in the 
French government only a power regardless of their essential rights, of 
their independence and sovereignty ; and if they jjossess the means, they 
can reconcile nothing with their interest and honor but a firm resistance." 

The president observed, farther, that we had no reason to regret the 
adoption of defensive measures ; that there had been nothing in the 
conduct of France to induce us to change or relax them ; and that " an 
efficient preparation for war could alone insure peace." And in reference 
to a new mission, he said : " To send another minister without more de- 
terminate assurances that he would be received, would be an act of 
humiliation to which the United States ought not to submit. It must 
therefore be left with France, (if she is indeed desirous of accommodor 
tion,) to take the requisite steps." 

To the speech of the president, both houses returned answers of ap- 
proval, which were adopted without any material opposition. 

Although no war had been declared on the part of either government, 
several engagements had taken place on the ocean, and a large amount 
of property of American citizens was captured by French cruisers. There 
was no occasion, however, of calling out the army. Induced, probably, 
by the war measures which had been adopted by congress, France indi- 
cated a willingness to relinquish her demand as a preliminary to nego- 
tiation, and to treat on reasonable terms; and in February, 1799, the 



DIFFICULTIES WITH FRANCE. .79 

president again appointed, with the advice and consent of the senate, 
three envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to the French 
republic. The gentlemen selected were Oliver Ellsworth, (chief justice 
of the United States,) Patrick Henry, and William Vans Murray, then 
minister resident in the Netherlands. Mr. Henry, though approving the 
measures of the administration, declined the appointment, assigning as 
the only reason, "nothing short of absolute necessity." William R. 
Davie, formerly governor of North Carolina, was subsequently appointed 
in the place of Mr, Henry. 

The president soon found himself in a serious difficulty. He had, as 
has been observed, on communicating to congress, at the commencement 
of the session, the unsuccessful termination of the negotiation, declared 
that he would never send another minister to France without assurances 
that he would be duly received and respected. The course pursued on 
the French question had been approved by his own party and by a large 
portion of his opponents. His friends, therefore, did not expect to see 
so ready a compliance, on his part, with the wishes of the French direc- 
tory. The surprise was probably heightened by the fact, that congress 
had just passed several bills in favor of additional measures of defense, 
and one for continuing the non-intercourse act for a year. 

Pichon, secretary of the French legation at the Hague, had been di- 
rected to communicate to Mr. Murray, American minister at that place, 
a willingness, on the part of the directory, to give a respectful reception 
to a minister from our government. Intimations having been given that 
Mr. Murray would be acceptable to the French government, that gentle- 
man was nominated. Not regarding the mere intimations of that gov- 
ernment of a disposition to renew the negotiation sufficient to justify the 
appointment of a mission, the committee of the senate to which the nomi- 
nation had been referred, attempted to dissuade the president from the 
prosecution of his design ; and having intimated an intention to report 
against the nomination, the president sent in the names of Ellsworth and 
Henry, who were to be added to the mission, but were not to leave until 
more direct assurances should be given by France that they would be 
duly received. Nor was Mr. Murray to proceed to France until he 
should have received such assurance. 

Of the members of the cabinet, Messrs. Pickering, Wolcott and 
M'Henry, secretaries of state, of the treasury, and of war, were known 
by the president to be decidedly opposed to renewing the mission under 
existing circumstances. The nominations were therefore made without 
consulting his cabinet or any of his friends. This slight put upon his 
constitntional advisers produced a breach between himself and a ma- 
jority of his cabinet which was never repaired. Indeed, his course en- 



180 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tirely estranged a large number of his friends, who had for some time 
been disafiected toward him ; among whom were Gen. Hamilton and 
Gouverneur Morris, and other men of distinctio)i and influence. They 
professed to doubt the sincerity of the French government ; and they 
considered it derogatory to the national honor to accept an offer to nego- 
tiate, until the decrees against our commerce should be repealed. An- 
other ground of objection, it has been suspected, was the apprehension 
that the renewal of negotiations under existing circumstances, and with- 
out a direct proposal on the part of France to treat, would have an ad- 
verse effect upon the popularity of the party. But -the president was 
averse to war. However cordially it might have been supported by his 
party, it would have encountered the opposition of the leaders, and per- 
haps of the mass of the party opposed to him. Besides, the large in- 
crease of taxation which it would require, he apprehended, might not be 
patiently borne. These were doubtless among the motives which in- 
duced the adoption of a more pacific policy. 

Murray having, according to instructions, informed the French gov- 
ernment that the departure of Ellsworth and Davie would be delayed 
until positive assurances should have been given through the French 
minister of foreign affairs, that they would be duly received, Talleyrand 
promptly returned an answer from the executive directory, conveying 
" the frank and explicit assurance that it would receive the envoys of the 
United States in the official character with which they were invested ; 
that they should enjoy all the prerogatives which are attached to it by 
the law of nations, and that one or more ministers should be duly au- 
thorized to treat with them." The very compliant and anxious minister 
added his " sincere regret, that Mr. Murray's two colleagues awaited 
this answer at so great a distance ! !" 

On the receipt of these assurances, the president, against the wishes 
of the majority of his cabinet, ordered the envoys to prepare for their 
departure, and directed the secretary of state to make a draft of instruc- 
tions to them. By these instructions, the envoys were to demand, as 
indispensable requisites, compensation for all losses and damages sus- 
tained by our citizens from illegal captures or condemnations of their 
vessels and other property, to be settled by a board appointed for that 
purpose; the guaranties to France by the treaties of 1778, of her West 
India and other American possessions, and from which the United States 
considered themselves released by the aggressions of France, were not to 
be renewed ; no aid or loan was to be promised ; no engagement was to 
be made, inconsistent with the obligations of any prior treaty ; and, as it 
respected our treaty with Great Britian, stipulations of the 25th aa'ticle 
thereof must not be interfered with. By this article, the contracting 



DIFFICULTIES WITH FRANCE. 181 

parties were to allow the ships of war or privateers of each other to carry 
whithersoever they pleased, the ships and goods taken from their ene- 
mies, and to enter each other's ports without being detained or seized. 
Nor was shelter or refuge to be given in their ports to such as had made 
prize upon the subjects or citizens of either party, unless forced by stress 
of weather, or danger of the sea, to enter ; and then they were to depart 
as soon as possible. Nor might either party permit the ships or goods 
of the other to be taken within cannon shot of the coast. And by this 
same article of the Jay treaty, Great Britain and the United States had 
agreed to make while at peace, no treaties with other nations inconsistent 
with this article and that preceding, which made it unlawful for the 
privateers of the enemies of either party to arm and equip their ships or 
sell their prizes in the ports of the other. The law of France requiring 
the confiscation of neutral vessels having on board goods coming from 
England or her possessions, must also be repealed. The envoys were 
also instructed, if there should be, on the part of France, any unreason- 
able delay in commencing the negotiation, to relinquish their mission, 
demand their passports, and leave the country ; and, having once resolved 
to terminate the mission, they were not to resume it, whatever fresh 
overtures or assurances might be tendered. It was expected that they 
would conclude the negotiation in time to embark for home by the 1st 
of April, that, on their return, congress might be in session to take such 
measures as should be required by the result of the mission. 

It was now near the middle of September, when intelligence was re- 
ceived of another revolution in France, caused by the reverses which had 
befallen her armies, and which were such as to excite apprehensions for 
the safety of the republic. The whole directory, with one exception, 
had been changed ; and it was doubtful whether oyr envoys would be re- 
ceived by the new directors. In this aspect of afiairs, the cabinet unani- 
mously advised the president to suspend the mission. After a brief con- 
sideration, however, and again without any special consultation with his 
cabinet, and in the exercise of that spirit of independence for which he 
was distinguished, the president ordered the speedy embarkation of the 
envoys. By this act, the president rendered the separation between 
himself and the majority of his cabinet complete, and aggravated the 
disaifection of many of his party into open and avowed opposition. 

Ill-advised as was the course of the president, considered as designed 
to promote his personal advantage, it resulted in an amicable adjustment 
of difficulties — an event which could hardly have been expected if he had 
followed the counsels of his more belligerent friends. 

Messrs. Ellsworth and Davie, the new envoys to France, had sailed 
from Newport, Rhode Island, on the 3rd of November, 1799, by way of 



182 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Lisbon, where they arrived the 27th, and were informed of the revolu- 
tion at Paris, by which Napoleon was placed at the head of the French 
government as first consul. Deeming it expedient to await further in- 
formation before entering France, and being further detained by contrary 
winds, they did not leave Lisbon until the 21st of December, when they 
.sailed for L'Orient ; but on account of a long succession of storms, and 
the consequent impossibility of reaching that port, they put into Corunna, 
on the 16th of January, 1800. On the next day they addressed a letter 
to Talleyrand, who was continued minister of foreign affairs, express- 
ing the hope that their letter of credence being addressed to the direc- 
tory, would be no objection to their reception ; and that, if the govern- 
ment should view the matter as they did, passports would be immediately 
sent to them, and one to Mr. Murray at the Hague. Talleyrand said in 
his answer, that the envoys had been " expected with impatience, and 
would be received with warmth," notwithstanding the form of their 
letters of credence ; and passports were accordingly sent. They reached 
Paris the 2d of March, and found Mr, Murray, who had arrived the day 
before. The envoys were duly received ; and three plenipotentiaries, Joseph 
Bonaparte, Fleurieu, and Roederer, were appointed to negotiate with them. 
The negotiation was commenced with due promptitude, and continued 
until the 30th of September, when a treaty was concluded. A detailed 
history of the negotiation can not here be given. There was great dif- 
ficulty in agreeing upon the terms of a treaty. The French ministers 
were unwilling to concede our claim for indemnity, or to consent to re- 
linquish the old treaties. It will be recollected that, according to the 
instructions to our ministers, the old treaties were not to be renewed. 
They had been declared void by congress, having been dissolved by hei 
aggressions upon our, commerce ; and being so considered, our govern- 
ment had, in article 25th of the treaty with Great Britain negotiated by 
Mr. Jay, agreed, that the ships of war and privateers of both parties 
should have permission to enter each other's ports with prizes without 
being subject to seizure or detention. And no shelter or refuge was to 
be given in their ports to such as had made prizes upon the citizens or 
subjects of cither of the parties. A revival of the old treaties with 
France, would restore to her the priority of rights therein stipulated, in 
contravention of our engagements with Great Britain, which, however, 
might cease within two years after the close of the then existing war; 
but would cease, in any event, at the expiration of twelve years after 
the ratification of the treaty. Our ministers being bound to observe 
our engagements with Great Britain, and the ministers of France being 
unwilling to admit the nullity of the old treaty of 1778, which ^ould 
exclude French privateers and prizes from the ports of the United 
States, an arrangement seemed impracticable. 



TREATY NEGOTIATED. 183 

France, having no money, was unwilling to pay indemnities ; and if, 
as maintained by the American ministers, the old treaties ■were not in 
force, we had no lawful claim for indemnity. To have renewed the old 
treaty would have compelled us, if called on, to furnish her succors in 
time of war, or, if not furnished, our refusal would be made a pretext 
for her to withhold the indemnities. The French ministers at length 
proposed to stipulate for mutual indemnities, with a recognition on our 
part of the force of the old treaties ; or to treat anew on reciprocal 
terms, without indemnities. As neither proposition could be accepted 
consistently with their instructions, our ministers must either quit 
France, leaving the United States in a serious difficulty, or else propose 
a temporary arrangement, reserving for definitive adjustment those points 
which could not then be settled. 

To the adoption of some arrangement, there were several strong in- 
ducements. Our position toward France was little less than a state of 
war ; while the successful operations of Bonaparte seemed to indicate a 
general peace in Europe ; an event which would leave us alone in a con- 
test with that power : Or, if the war should continue, an arrangement 
was necessary in order to relieve our commerce from exposure to the 
depredations of the French. Another object was to save a large amount 
of captured property not yet condemned : there being more than forty 
ships and cargoes, then pending for decision before the French council 
of prizes. 

A treaty was at length concluded the 30th of September, 1800. Its 
principal provisions were the following : The binding force of the old 
treaties, and the mutual claims for indemnities, were reserved for future 
negotiation. All public ships, and all property captured by either party 
and not yet condemned, were to be restored.- All government and indi- 
vidual debts due were to be paid. The vessels of either party were tc 
enjoy in the ports of the other equal privileges with those of the most 
favored nation. The provision of the old treaty that free ships should 
make free goods, was retained. Provision was also made for the future 
security of American commerce. 

The articlewhich allowed French privateers and prizes equal privi- 
leges with those of the most favored nation, was inserted by the French 
ministers after repeated declarations from our ministers that, agreeably 
to the rule of construction settled by the law of nations, this stipulation 
could have no effect as against the British treaty, unless derived from 
the former treaties, which, it was expressly agreed, were to be for the time 
without operation. This article was deemed of less consequence, as it 
was presumed the United States would soon be able to refuse the priva- 
teers and prizes of any nation an asylum beyond what the righta of 
humanity required. • 



184 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Apprehending, however, that the government of Great Britain might 
regard this provision as contravening the stipulation in our treaty with 
that power, allowing no other nation the same privileges, Mr. King, our 
minister at London, presented the matter to that government, and was 
told by lord Grrenville that they saw in it no cause of complaint. 

Congress met this year, (November 17, 1800,) at Washington, whither 
the seat of government had been removed during the preceding summer. 
Early in December, Mr. Davie returned with the new treaty, which was 
a few days afterward, (December 15,) laid before the senate. It jnetthe 
decided disapprobation of the federal senators opposed to Mr. Adams 
and the new mission, because it contained no provision for the payment 
of indemnities, and for the renunciation of the old treaties ; and the 
result of the opposition was the adoption of an article limiting the term 
of the convention to eight years, as a substitute for that which referred 
the question of indemnity and the old treaties to future negotiation. 
The president, though he considered the alteration as being for the worse, 
ratified it, and appointed James A. Bayard, of Delaware, as minister, to 
carry the treaty with the amendment to France for ratification bj'' that 
government. Mr. Bayard declining the appointment, and the presiden- 
tial term of Mr. Adams being near its close, he left the matter to his 
successor. 

The event showed the mistake of the senate. When the amended 
treaty was submitted to Bonaparte, he added a proviso, that the expung- 
ing of the article relating to indemnity and old treaties, should be con- 
sidered as a relinquishment of claims for indemnity. With this addi- 
tional amendment it was ratified by our government. Thus did France 
succeed in obtaining what she had proposed to our ministers — a new 
treaty withaut indemnities. 

The press appears to have been quite as much relied on as an instru- 
ment of party warfare during these early political struggles as it is at 
the present day. And, judging from the specimens which the history 
of that period has furnished us of the character of the political press, as 
well as of that of political parties, we may conclude that it has under- 
gone no change for the worse. Several papers, during the two first 
administrations, were conducted by foreigners, who, whatever may have 
been the merit of their political opinions, were very far from doing honor 
to the editorial profession. And some of American birth could scarcely 
boast of a higher standing. Freneau's National Gazette had " died out," 
and the Aurora, for several years its coadjutor in the democratic cause, 
was now the accredited organ of the opposition in Philadelphia ; Benjamin 
Franklin Bache, its former editor, grandson of Benjamin Franklin, had 
fallen a victim to the yellow fever which visited that city in 1797 ; and 



POLITICAL WRITERS. ' 185 

had been succeeded, as editor, by James Duane, father of William J. 
Duane, Gen. Jackson's disobedient secretary of the treasury, in 1834. 
He was born in this country of Irish parents, and went, when young, to 
his friends in Ireland, where he learned the printer's trade. He subse- 
quently established an English newspaper in Calcutta, (India.) Having 
transcended the narrow bounds prescribed by British laws in those days 
to the liberty of the press in that quarter, his establishment was seized, 
and he was compelled to return to England, whence he emigrated to this 
country. His hatred to Great Britain and British laws fitted him for 
the editorship of an opposition paper. Fenno, of the United States 
Gazette, had also died of the same disease, and about the same time as 
Bache, and his paper passed into the hands of his son. 

One of the political writers of that day who attained to considerable 
notoriety, was Thomas Callender, who had left Scotland to avoid prose- 
cution for the publication of a libelous pamphlet. He is reputed as hav- 
ing been a man of Intemperate and other immoral habits. His writings 
in this country appeared for a time in pamphlets and magazines, of which 
were the " American Annual Register," and " The prospect before us." 
He published also a paper at Richmond, called " The Examiner." He 
is represented to have been a powerful, though unscrupulous assailant 
of the administration, and was probably an effective auxiliary in effecting 
its overthrow. By certain statements in the last mentioned of the above 
named publications, he subjected himself to a prosecution under the sedi- 
tion law, for libel against the president, for which he was sentenced to 
imprisonment for nine months, and to the payment of a fine of $200 : 
and he was required also to give securities for his good behavior for 
two years. By the aid of his friends, the fine had been paid : and the 
term of his imprisonment had expired almost simultaneously with Mr. 
Jefferson's coming into office, who hastened to grant him a pardon, which, 
it was held, entitled him to a remission of the fine ; and the president 
accordingly ordered it to be remitted. Strange as it may seem, this man 
was two years thereafter found associated with the federalists in attacks 
upon his benefactor, Mr. Jefferson, who had rejected his application for 
the office of postmaster at Richmond, and whom Callender now publicly 
charged with having assisted him in the publication of the paper in 
which the libels for which he had been prosecuted were published. In 
proof of the charge he published letters from Mr. Jefferson, which dis 
closed the fact of his having, by the contribution of money and other- 
wise, aided the publication of the " Prospect before us." 

As a set-off to these foreign writers in support of the opposition, the 
federalists had in their service the celebrated William Cobbett, an Eng- 
lishman, who came tc this country in 1792, and who, after having, under 



186 THE AMEBICAN STATESMAN. 

the formidable name of Peter Porcupine, written several pampLleta iu 
favor of the late treaty with Great Britain, was now sending out his 
pointed missiles at the democrats through " Porcupine's Gazette," u 
daily paper in Philadelphia, established by himself He was a most 
caustic and effective writer ; but his influence was much impaired by his 
enthusiastic regard for his native country and its institutions, which 
often brought him into conflict with federal editors. 

Commensurate with Cobbett's love for Great Britain, was his hatred 
to France. His strictures upon the conduct of the directory were very 
severe, and scarcely less so upon that of the king of Spain and his min- 
ister in this country, who were charged with subserviency to France •, 
the former, as Cobbett said, being " governed like a dependent by the 
nod of the five despots at Paris, the. other by the directions of the French 
agents in America. Because the infidel tyrants thought proper to rob 
and insult this country and its government, and we have thought proper, 
I am sorry to add, to submit to it, the obsequious imitative Don must 
attempt the same, in order to participate in the guilt and lessen the 
infamy of his masters." Yrujo, the Spanish minister, hoping to main- 
tain an action against Cobbett for libel, had the matter laid before 
the grand jury of the circuit court of the United States ; and the latter 
was bound over to the next term for trial. The case, however, was 
never tried in this court. Yrujo, thinking a successful prosecution more 
probable in the courts of the state of Pennsylvania, whose chief-justice, 
M'Kean, was a devoted friend of France, and particularly of the Spanish 
minister, concluded to resort to these tribunals. A warrant was issued 
by M'Kean against Cobbett for libels on the king of Spain and his min- 
ister ; and at the next criminal sessions, the case was brought before the 
grand jury to whom M'Kean gave an elaborate and able charge ; but no 
indictment was found. Other attempts were made by this judge to pro- 
cure the conviction of Cobbett for libel, which did not succeed. These 
occurrences took place in 1797. 

During this year, the yellow-fever prevailed in Philadelphia ; and 
Cobbett attacked the opinions of Dr. Rush respecting the origin of this 
disease, and ridiculed his method of treating it. A suit for libel was 
commenced against Cobbett for damages. The trial came on in Decem- 
ber, 1799: and a judgment was obtained for $5,000. This, and other 
prosecutions, (no other, however, resulting in a conviction of libel,) were 
the cause of his return to England. 

In March, 1799, a few days after the adjournment of congress, resist- 
ance was made in Pennsylvania to the law levying a direct tax upon 
houses and lands. It was confined, however, to the co anties of Northum- 
berland, Bucks, and Montgomery. The measurement of the houses, 



I 



THE SIXTH CONGRESS. 187 

which was required by the law in rating the assessment, was violently- 
opposed. A large number of rioters, were arrested ; but they were 
rescued by a party of armed horsemen, headed by a man named Fries. 
The president issued a proclamation enjoining submission to the laws ; 
and made a requisition upon the governor of Pennsylviania for a military 
force to enforce them. Fries and most of his party were arrested and 
taken to Philadelphia. Fries was convicted of treason ; but one of the 
jurors having, as was afterward ascertained, previously expressed an 
opinion as to the deserts of the prisoner, a new trial was granted. Others 
of the party were convicted of misdemeanor. Fries was tried again the 
next year, and again found guilty, with two others, of the same offense ; 
all of whom were pardoned by the president, to the great displeasure of 
many of the federalists, who attributed this act of clemency to motives 
of personal advantage. 

Tf e 6th congress commenced its 1st session December 2, 1799. The 
house had obtained a decided majority in favor of the administration ; 
and Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, was elected speaker, over 
Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, by a vote of 44 to 38. The third 
annual address of the president was delivered the next day. The pros- 
perous state of the country, notwithstanding the interruptions to our 
commerce occasioned by the belligerent state of a great part of the world; 
the return of health, industry, and trade, to those cities which had latelj 
been afflicted with disease; and the civil and religious advantages 
secured and continued under our happy frame of government, were men- 
tioned as subjects demanding the gratitude of the whole American people. 
The president called the attention of congress to the judiciary system, 
which, he said, needed amendment " to give due effect to the civil admin- 
istration of the government, and to insure a just execution of the laws." 

In relation to the French question, the president said : " When indi- 
cations were made on the part of the French republic of a disposition to 
accommodate the existing differences between the two countries, I felt it 
my duty to prepare for meeting their advances, by a nomination of min- 
isters upon certain conditions which the honor of the country dictated, 
and which its moderation had given a right to prescribe. The assu- 
rances which were required of the French government previous to the 
departure of our envoys, have been given through their minister of for- 
eign relations, and I have directed them to proceed on their mission to 
Paris." [The history of the mission and treaty has been given.] 

The two houses, in their answers to the president's speech, expressed 
their approbation of his course toward France, although it was not easy 
to prepare an answer which would give satisfaction to the president, and 
receive the concurrence of those members who were opposed to the new 
mission to that country. 



188 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The business of the session had scarcely been commenced, when the 
melancholy intelligence was received of the death of Gen. Washington, 
which had occurred on the 14th of December, 1799. The announcement 
was made in the house by John Marshall, of Virginia. Appropriate 
demonstrations of respect were adopted by both houses. Probably the 
death of no other individual in the United States ever produced so deep 
a sensation in the public mind. 

Among the acts passed at this session were, an act making farther 
appropriations for the military establishment ; an act to continue the 
non-intercourse with France ; and an act to continue in force the act for 
the defense of merchant vessels against French depredations ; an act 
laying additional duties on sugar, molasses, and wines ; an act for the 
preservation of peace with the Indian tribes ; a bankrupt law ; and an 
act providing for taking tlie second census. 

An act was also passed at this session " to divide the territory of the 
United States, north-west of the Ohio, into two separate governments." 
All that part of this territory lying westward of a line beginning at the 
Ohio, opposite the mouth of the Kentucky river, and running thence to 
fort Recovery, and thence north to the Canada line, was to constitute a 
separate territory, called the Indiana territory, with a government simi- 
lar to that then existing over the whole north-western territory. 

To facilitate the sale and settlement of the western lands, which had 
been exceedingly slow, owing to the defective method of sale, for the 
purpose of increasing the revenue, a change in the system was made at 
this session, and four land ofl&ces were to be established within the terri- 
tory. Gen. Wm. H. Harrison appeared at this session as the first dele- 
gate from the north-western territory; and to his efi'orts, chiefly, has 
been ascribed the adoption of a system under which that country was 
afterward so rapidly settled. 

The disaffection which had for some time existed in the federal party, 
was coming to a crisis. The president intending to spend the summer 
at his residence in Massachusetts, and being indisposed to leave the 
executive business in the hands of cabinet officers, a majority of whom 
were no longer his friends, he determined to make a change in some of 
the departments — a change delayed only from motives of political ex- 
pediency. Nothing but the dreaded eflfects of a cabinet explosion upon 
the party, could have prevented either their dismissal by the president, 
or their voluntary resignation. Just before the close of the session, in 
May, 1800, Mr. Adams requested the secretaries of state and of war 
(Pickering and M'Henry) to resign, which the latter promptly did ; but 
which the former, preferring a direct dismissal, refused to do. John 
Marshall, of Virginia was appointed secretary of state in the place of 



PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 189 

Mr. Pickering, and Samuel Dexter, of Massachusetts, in the place of 
Mr. M'Henry. 

Within a few months a presidential election was to take place ; and 
the great object of the federal opponents of Mr. Adams was to contrive 
a plan to prevent his reelection without defeating the party ; in other 
words, to effect the election of some other federalist. In order to suc- 
ceed, their purpose must be concealed from the mass of the party. 

It will be recollected that the original mode of electing president and 
vice-president still existed, by which the presidential electors were re- 
quired to vote for two persons without designating the office to which 
each was to be elected, and by which the one having the highest number 
of votes was to be president, the one having the next highest was to be 
vice-president. John Adams and Charles C. Pinckney were the federal 
candidates. The plan of Mr. Adams' federal opponents was to try, by 
secret exertions, to secure the largest number of votes for Mr. Pinckney. 
Mr. Adams knowing their scheme, and conceiving their opposition to 
him to have arisen from their partialities for England, and his own desire 
to avoid a war with France, he stigmatized them as a British faction. They 
were by some suspected of actually wishing for a war, believing it would 
be a popular measure, and insure the success of the party at the next 
presidential election. 

This charge by Mr. Adams and his friends against these federal 
leaders, provoked their resentment, and incited them to a more deter- 
mined opposition. So highly inflamed were the feelings of Hamilton, 
that, against the remonstrances of some of his friends, he wrote and 
printed a pamphlet, repelling the imputations of subserviency to Great 
Britain, noticing the defects in the. character of Mr. Adams which unfit- 
ted him for the station he occupied, and maintaining the superior fitness 
of Mr. Pinckney for that office. The issuing of this pamphlet at this 
time, was not a wise measure. It was intended only for private circula- 
tion among the leading federalists ; but as might have been expected, it 
soon passed its prescribed limits, and portions of it appeared in demo- 
cratic newspapers. It was, however, apparently written in a spirit of 
candor, and was not discreditable to its author ; and, as between the ac- 
cuser and the accused, its publication was justifiable. 

The prospects of Mr. Adams' reelection were not flattering. He had 
been elected in 1796, by 71 votes against 68 for Mr. Jefferson, and there 
were early indications of another close contest, with the chances rather 
against him than in his favor. The alien and sedition laws had been 
doing their work, wielded, as they were, by the skillful leaders of the 
opposition. True, his conduct toward France had been mild and concili- 
atory ; and her insults and injuries had been borne until her most ardent 



190' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

friends could not but justify the change of policy which it had been 
deemed necessary to adopt. His defensive measures were on the wholo 
popular ; but then they required an increase of taxation, which, though 
for the wisest and best of purposes, is always regarded by many as a 
greater evil than an unconstitutional law or a national wrong. His 
efforts to maintain friendly relations with France, and his precautionary 
measures of national defense when threatened by war, however they may 
have checked the virulence of the opposition, yet failed to gain for him 
many active supporters froni that party, while his ready compliance with 
the wishes of France, as we have seen, seriously affected his standing 
with his own. Hence, the result of the election in November took no 
one by surprise. 

The 2nd session of the 6th congress, which, as has been stated, was 
held at the new seat of government, terminated the 3d of March, 1801. 
At this session was passed " an act to provide for the more convenient 
organization of the courts of the United States ;" an act which, from the 
circumstances connected with and following it, obtained not a little 
celebrity. Under the act previously existing, the United States were 
divided into thirteen judicial districts, which composed three circuits. 
In each of these thirteen districts, two courts were to be held annually 
by two justices of the supreme court, (then six in number,) with the 
judge of the district. The great extent of these circuits, and the difiGi- 
culties of traveling at that early day, caused great delays in the admin- 
istration of justice ; and the subject of a remedy had been repeatedly 
urged upon the attention of congress. 

By the new act, the number of districts was increased to twenty-three, 
and the number of circuits to six, with three circuit judges in each. 
The act was approved February 13, 1801 ; thus giving to the president 
less than three weeks before the expiration of his term of oflSce, the ap- 
pointment of a large number of judges, attorneys, marshals, &c. Fill- 
ing the new offices mainly or altogether with federalists, loud complaints 
were made by the opposition, who denounced both the law and the presi- 
dent by whom it had been conceived, as was alleged, for the express pur- 
pose of making place for his federal friends. The opposition having ob- 
tained majorities in the next congress, the law was repealed at its first 
session, and of course the new judges sent to private life. 

An act was passed near the close of the session, providing for a naval m 
peace establishment. Apprehensions of a war with France having sub- ' 
sided, an act was passed at the close of the session, authorizing the 
president to sell all the vessels of the navy, except thirteen frigates 
which were named ; six of which were to be kept in constant service 
and the residue to be laid up in convenient ports. 



4i 



PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 191 

Upou the Gth congress, at the present session, and almost simulta- 
neously with the passage of the judiciary act, devolved the election of 
president. In the electoral colleges, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, 
the republican candidates, had each received 73 votes. The two federal 
candidates had received, John Adams, 65, and Charles C. Pinckney, 
64 ; one vote having been given to John Jay. The votes for Jefferson 
and Burr being equal, the house of representatives, voting by states, 
must determine the election. 

There being now sixteen states in the union, the vote of nine states 
was necessary to a choice, which, after a tedious balloting, was at length 
obtained by Mr. Jefferson, on the 36th ballot. Although both were re- 
publicans, Mr. Burr being from a northern state, (New York) and the 
supposition that he would, if elected, give less strength to his party than 
Mr. Jefferson, the former was the least exceptionable to the federal 
members generally, whose intention it was early known to be, to vote for 
him, though against the remonstrances, it is said, of Hamilton, who, in 
a letter to an eastern friend, gave the following striking delineation of 
his character : 

"■ I trust New England, at least, will not fall into the snare. There 
is no doubt that, upon every prudent and virtuous calculation, Jefferson 
is to be preferred. He is by far not so dangerous a man, and he has 
pretensions to character. As to Burr, there is nothing in his favor. His 
private character is not defended by his most partial friends. He is 
bankrupt beyond redemption, except by the plunder of his country. 
His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggran- 
dizement. If he can, he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure 
himself permanent power, and with it wealth. 

" Let it not be imagined that Burr can be won to federal views. It is 
a vain hope. Stronger ties and stronger inducements will impel him in 
a contrary direction. His ambition will not be content with those 
objects which virtuous men of either party will allot to it ; and his situ- 
ation and his habits will oblige him to have recourse to corrupt ex- 
pedients, from which he will be restrained by no moral scruples. To ac- 
complish his ends, he must lean upon unprincipled men, and will continue 
to adhere to the myrmidons who have hitherto surrounded him. To these 
he will no doubt add able rogues of the federal party ; but he will 
employ the rogues of all parties to overrule the good men of all parties, 
and to promote projects which wise men of every description will disap- 
prove. These things are to be inferred with moral certainty fiom the 
character of the man. Every step of his career proves that he has 
formed himself on the model of Catiline ; and he is too cold-blooded 
and determined a conspirator ever to change his plan." 



192 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The balloting continued about a week ; Jefferson receiving the votes 
of eight states : New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Northn 
Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Burr received the votes 
of six states : New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecti- 
cut, Delaware, and South Carolina. Vermont and Maryland were equally 
divided. Had all the federal members voted for Burr, he would have 
had a plurality of the states. The division of Maryland was caused by 
one of the federal representatives voting for Jefferson in conformity with 
the wishes of his constituents ; and the single member from Georgia, a 
federalist, (his colleague having died,) did the same ; as did also one of 
the North Carolina members ; but for which, this state would have been 
divided ; which would have given Burr eight states, Jefferson six, and 
leaving Vermont and North Carolina without a vote. By the absence 
of Morris, of Vermont, a federalist, and by Craik and Baer, of Mary- 
land, also federalists, casting blank ballots, the 36th ballot gave Jeffer- 
son ten states. 

It was this election which led to the change in the mode of electing 
president and vice-president, by the adoption of the 12th article of 
amendments. 

Connected with the history of this election, are certain statements 
which involve the honor and veracity of certain distinguished gentlemen. 
The design was charged upon the federalists of standing out and pre- 
venting an election, and of passing an act to vest the executive authority 
in some high officer of the government. Jlr. Jefferson, in a letter of the 
15th of February, wrote to Mr. Monroe as follows : " Four days of bal- 
loting have produced not a single change of a vote. Yet it is confident- 
ly believed that to-morrow there is to be a coalition. I know of no 
foundation for this belief. If they could have been permitted to pass a 
law for putting the government into the hands of an officer, they would 
certainly have prevented an election. But we thought it best to declare 
openly and firmly, one and all, that the day such an act passed, the mid 
die states would arm, and that no such usurpation, even for a single day, 
should be submitted to. This first shook them ; and they were com- 
pletely alarmed at the resource for which we declared, to wit, a conven- 
tion to reorganize the government and to amend it. The very word con- 
vention gives them the horrors, aSj in the present democratical spirit of 
America, they fear they should lose some of the favorite morsels of the 
constitution. Many attempts have been made to obtain terms and pro- 
mises from me. I have declared to them unequivocally, that I would 
not receive the government on capitulation ; that I would not go into it 
with my hands tied." 

Among the persons implicated in this charge, was James A. Bayard^ 



PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 193 

of Delaware, afterward senator in congress, and one of the commissionera 
who negotiated the treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1814. Mr 
Bayard, who is universally^ conceded to have maintained through life a 
character unblemished and above suspicion, in exculpation of himself, 
made a deposition, April 3, 1806, of which the following are extracts: 

" Messrs. Baer and Craik, members of the house of representatives 
from Maryland, and General Morris, a member of' the house from Ver- 
mont, and myself, having the power to determine the votes of the states, 
from similarity of views and opinions, during the pendency of the elec- 
tion, made an agreement to vote together. Wc foresaw that a crisis 
was approaching which might probably force us to separate in our votes 
from the party with whom we usually acted. We were determined to 
make a president, and the period of Mr. Adams' administration was 
rapidly approaching. 

" In determining to recede from the opposition to Mr. Jeflferson, it 
occurred to us, that, probably, instead of being obliged to surrender at 
discretion, we might obtain terms of capitulation. The gentlemen whose 
names I have mentioned, authorized me to declare their concurrence with 
me upon the best terms that could be procured. The vote of either of 
us was sufficient to decide the choice. With a view to the end mentioned, 
I applied to Mr. John Nicholas, a member of the house from Virginia, 
who was a particular friend of Mr. Jefferson. I stated to Mr. Nicholas 
that if certain points of the future administration could be understood 
and arranged with Mr. Jefferson, I was authorized to say that three 
states would withdraw from an opposition to his election. He asked me 
what those points were ; I answered. First, sir, the support of the public 
credit; secondly, the maintenance of the naval system; and lastly, that 
subordinate public officers employed only in the execution of details, 
established by law, shall not be removed from office on the ground of 
their political cliaracter, nor without complaint against their conduct. I 
explained myself, that I considered it not only reasonable, but necessary, 
that offices of high discretion and confidence should be filled by men of 
Mr. Jefferson's choice. I exemplified, by mentioning, on the one hand, 
the offices of the secretaries of state, treasury, foreign ministers, &c. ; 
and on the other, the collectors of ports, &c. Mr. Nicholas answered 
me, that he considered the points very reasonable, that he was satis- 
fied that they corresponded with the views and intentions of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, and he knew him well. That he was acquainted with most of the 
gentlemen who would probably be about him and enjoy his confidence, 
in case he became president, and that if I would be satisfied with his as- 
surance, he could solemnly declare it as his opinion, that Mr. Jefferson, 

in his administration, would not depart from the pointa I proposed. I 

13 



194 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

replied to Mr. Nicholas, that I had not the least doubt of the sincerity 
of his declaration, and that his opinion was perfectly correct, but that I 
wanted an engagement, and that if the points could in any form be un- 
derstood as conceded by Mr. Jefferson, the election should be ended; 
and proposed to him to consult Mr. Jefferson. This he declined, and 
said he could do no more than give me the assurance of his own opinion ■ 
as to the sentiments and designs of Mr. Jefferson and his friends. I 
told him that was not sufficient, that we should not surrender without 
better terms. Upon this we separated ; and I shortly after met with 
General Smith, to whom I unfolded myself in the same manner that I 
had done to Mr. Nicholas. In explaining myself to him in relation to 
the nature of the offices alluded to, I mentioned the offices of George 
Latimer, collector of the port of Philadelphia, and Allen M'Lane, col- 
lector of Wilmington. General Smith gave me the same assurance as to 
the observance by Mr. Jefferson of the points which I had stated, which 
Mr. Nicholas had done. I told him I should not be satisfied, nor agree 
to yield, till I had the assurance of Mr. Jefferson himself; but that if he 
would consult Mr. Jefferson, and bring the assurance from him, the 
election should be ended. The general made no difficulty in consulting 
Mr. Jefferson, and proposed giving me his answer the next morning. 
The next day, upon our meeting. General Smitli informed me that he 
had seen Mr. Jefferson, and stated to him the points mentioned, and was 
authorized by him to say, that they corresponded with his views and 
intentions, and that we might confide in him accordingly. The opposi- 
tion of Vermont, Maryland, and Delaware, was immediately withdrawn, 
and Mr. Jefferson was made president by the votes of ten states." 

In the "great debate" in the senate, January, 1830, Mr. Hayne 
brought into the senate the 4th volume of Jefferson's memoirs for the 
purpose of reference. Certain other senators called the attention of Mr. 
Clayton, of Delaware, to the following passage which they had discovered 
in the volume : — " February the 12th, 1801. — Edward Livingston tells 
me that Bayard applied to-day, or last night, to Gen. Samuel Smith, and 
represented to him the expediency of coming over to the states who vote 
for Burr ; that there was nothing in the way of appointment which he 
might not command, and particularly mentioned the secretaryship of ■ 
the navy. Smith asked him if he was authorized to make the offer. ^ 
He said he was authorized. Smith told this to Livingston, and to W. 
C. Nicholas, who confirms it to me," &c. 

Messrs. Livingston and Smith being at this time (1830) both members 
of the senate, Mr. Clayton, iu order to rescue the character of his de- 
ceased predecessor from unjust reproach, called upon the senators from 
Louisiana and Maryland to disprove the above statement ; both of whom 



PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 195 

declared that they had no recollection of such a transaction. In addi 
tion to this testimony, the sons of the late Mr. Bayard published a letter 
from George Baer, one of the federal members from Maryland, in 1801, 
addressed to Richard H. Bayard, under date of April 19, 1830, in which 
Mr. Baer said : — " Previous to and pending the election, rumors were 
industriously circulated, and letters written to different parts of the 
country, charging the federalists with the design to prevent the election 
of a president, and to usurp the legislative power. I was privy to all the 
arrangements made, and attended all the meetings of the federal party 
when consulting on the course to be pursued in relation to the election, 
and I pledge my most solemn asseveration that no such measure was for 
a moment contemplated by that party ; that no such proposition was 
ever made ; and that if it had ever been, it would not only have been 
discouraged, but instantly put down, by those gentlemen who possessed 
the power, and were pledged to each other to elect a president before the 
close of the session. 

"Although nearly thirty years have elapsed since that eventful period, 
my recollection is vivid, as to the principal circumstances, which, from 
the part I was called upon to act, were deeply graven on my memory. 
It was soon ascertained that there were six individuals, the vote of any 
one of whom, could at any moment decide the election. These were 
your father, the late James A. Bayard, who held the vote of the state of 
Delaware, General Morris, of Vermont, who held the divided vote of 
that state, and Mr. Craik, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Thomas, and myself, who 
held the divided vote qf Maryland. Your father, Mr. Craik, and my- 
self, having compared ideas upon the subject, and finding that we enter- 
tained the same views and opinions, resolved to act together, and accord- 
ingly entered into a solemn and mutual pledge, that we would, in the 
first instance, yield to the wishes of the great majority of the party with 
whom we acted, and vote for Mr. Burr, but that no consideration should 
induce us to protract the contest beyond a reasonable period for the pur- 
pose of ascertaining whether he could be elected. We determined that 
a president should be chosen, but were willing thus far to defer to the 
opinions of our political friends, whose preference of Mr. Burr was 
founded upon a belief that he was less hostile to federal men and federal 
measures, than Mr. Jefferson. General Morris and Mr. Dennis concur* 
red in this arrangement.' 



196 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

MR. Jefferson's inauguration. — appointments. — naturalization. — 

PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. BOUNDARY TREATY WITH ENGLAND. 

The inauguration of Mr. Jeflferson took place on the 4tli of March, 
1801, with the appropriate ceremonies usual on similar occasions. The 
inaugural address, in its language and sentiments, was regarded as un- 
exceptionable ; and in respect to parties, its tone was pacific and con- 
ciliatory. The following paragraphs constitute the greater part of the 
address. 

" During the contests of opinion through which we have passed, the 
animation of discussion and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect 
which might impose on strangers unused to think freely, and to speak, 
and to write what they think ; but this being now decided by the voice 
of the nation, announced according to the rules of the constitution, all 
will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite 
in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this 
sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to 
prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable ; that the minority 
possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate 
which would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one 
heart -and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony 
and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary 
things. And let us reflect, that, having banished from our land that re- 
ligious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we 
have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as des- 
potic as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. Dur- 
ing the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing 
spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long 
lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should 
reach even this distant and peaceful shore ; that this should be more felt 
and feared by some, and less by- others ; that this should divide opinions 
as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a differ- 
ence of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the 
same principle. We are all republicans — we are all federalists. If 
there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change 
its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the 
safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left 



MR. Jefferson's inauguration. 197 

free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a re- 
publican government cannot be strong, that this government is not strong 
enough. But would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful ex- 
periment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, 
on the theoretic and visionary fear that this government, the world's best 
hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. 
I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I 
believe it is the only one, where every man, at the call of the laws, would 
fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public 
order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can- 
not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted 
with the government of others ? Or have we found angels in the forms 
of kings to govern him ? Let history answer this question. 

" Let us, then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal 
and republican principles, our attachment to our union and representa- 
tive government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from 
the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe ; too high-minded 
to endure the degradations of the other ; possessing a chosen country, 
with room enough for our descendants to the hundredth and thousandth 
generation ; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our 
own faculties, to the acquisitions of our industry, to honor and confidence 
from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions 
and their sense of them ; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, 
indeed, and practised in various forms, yet all of them including honesty, 
truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man ; acknowledging and 
adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves 
that it delights in the happiness of man here, and his greater happiness 
hereafter ; with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a 
happy and prosperous people ? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens, a 
wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one 
another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pur- 
suits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth 
of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, 
and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. 

" About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which com- 
prehend every thing dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you 
should understand what I deem the essential principles of our govern- 
ment, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. 
I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, 
stating the general ; rinciple, but not all its limitations. Equal and 
sxact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or 
political ; peace, commerce, and honest friendship, with all nations — 



198 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

entangliDg alliances with none ; the support of the state governments in 
all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic 
concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies ; the 
preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, 
as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad ; a*jeal- 
ous care of the right of election by the people — a mild and safe correc- 
tive of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peace- 
able remedies are unprovided ; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of 
the majority — the vital principle of republics, from which there is no 
appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despo- 
tism ; a well-disciplined militia — our best reliance in peace, and for the 
first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them ; the supremacy 
of the civil over the military authority ; economy in the public expense, 
that labor may be lightly burdened ; the honest payment of our debts 
and sacred preservation of the public faith : encouragement of agricul- 
ture and of commerce, as its handmaid ; the diffusion of information and 
the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason ; freedom of 
religion ; freedom of the press ; freedom of person under the protec- 
tion of the habeas corpus ; and trial by juries impartially selected — 
these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, 
and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The 
wisdom of our sages, and the blood of our heroes, have been devoted to 
their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith — the 
text of civil instruction — the touchstone by which to try the services of 
those we trust ; and should we wander from them in moments of error 
or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which 
alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." 

Mr. Jefferson selected for his cabinet officers, James Madison, secre- 
tary of state ; Henry Dearborn, of Massachusetts, secretary of war, and 
Levi Lincoln, of Massachusetts, attorney-general. Samuel Dexter, of 
Massachusetts, secretary of the treasury, and Benjamin Stoddart, of 
Maryland, secretary of the navy, both of whom had been appointed by 
Mr. Adams, were continued in office ; as also Joseph Habersham, of 
Georgia, postmaster-general; until January, 1802, when Albert Gallatin, 
of Pennsylvania, was appointed secretary of the treasury; Robert Smith, 
of Maryland, secretary of the navy ; and Gideon Granger, of Connecti- 
cut, postmaster-general. Mr. Habersham had held this office since his 
appointment by president Washington, February 25, 1795. The post- 
master-general was first made a cabinet officer by president Jackson. 

The newspaper which was selected as the official organ of the new 
administration, was the National Intelligencer, which had been estab- 
lished in the new city a few months beftre the election, by Benjamin - 



APPOINTMENTS. 199 

Harrison Smith of Philadelphia, for some time publisher of a republi- 
can paper in that city. The Intelligencer is the paper now published 
by Gales and Seaton, into whose hands it came a few years after its com- 
mencement. An opposition paper, the Washington Federalist, was 
established at or near the same time as the Intelligencer. 

The tenor of the inaugural address, and the assurances given to Mr. 
Bayard, had allayed the apprehensions of the opposition in relation to a 
general removal of public officers subject to executive appointment. A 
larger number of removals, however, were made than the federalists 
deemed consistent with the professions and pledges of Mr. Jefferson. 
A case which obtained a notoriety beyond any other, was that of the dis- 
placement of Elizur Goodrich, collector of the port of New Haven, and 
the appointment of Samuel Bishop, nearly seventy-eight years of age, 
whose eye-sight was much impaired, and whose qualifications for the 
office were considered far inferior to those of his predecessor. The mer^ 
chants of New Haven sent a remonstrance to the president, in which 
they declaied the superiority of Mr. Goodrich's qualifications, and re- 
minded the president of the sentiments expressed in his inaugural 
address. In his reply Mr. Jefferson thus vindicated his course : 

" Declarations by myself, in favor of political tolerance, exhortations 
to harmony and affection in social intercourse, and respect for the equal 
right of the minority, have, on certain occasions, been quoted and mis- 
construed into assurances that the tenure of offices was not to be dis- 
turbed. But could candor apply such a construction ? When it is 
considered that, during the late administration, those who were not of a ■ 
particular sect of politics were excluded from all office ; when, by a 
steady pursuit of this measure, nearly the whole offices of the United 
States were monopolized by that sect ; when the public sentiment at 
length declared itself, and burst open the doors of honor and confidence 
to those whose opinions they approved ; was it to be imagined that this 
monopoly of office was to be continued in the hands of the minority ? 
Does it violate their equal rights to assert some rights in the majority 
also ? Is it political intolerance to claim a proportionate share in the 
direction of the public affairs? If a due participation of office is a 
matter of right ; how are vacancies to be obtained ? Those by death are 
few, by resignation none. Can any other mode than that of removal be 
proposed ? This is a painful office ; but it is made my duty, and I meet 
it as such. I proceed in the operation with deliberation and inquiry, 
that it may injure the best men least, and effect the purposes of justice 
and public utility with the least private distress ; that it may be throws 
as much as possible on delinquency, on oppression, on intolerance, on 
anti-revolutionary adherence to our enemies. 



200 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

" I lament sincerely that unessential differences of opinion should ever 
have been deemed sufficient to interdict half the society from the rights 
and the blessings of self-government, to proscribe them as unworthy of 
every trust. It would have been to me a circumstance of great relief, 
had I found a moderate participation of office in the hands of the major- 
ity. I would gladly have left to time and accident to raise them to their 
just share. But their total exclusion calls for prompter corrections. I 
shall correct the procedure ; but that done, return with joy to that state 
of things when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be, Is he 
honest ? Is he capable ? Is he faithful to the constitution ?" 

To the general sentiments contained in this vindication, there would 
seem to be little ground of objection, even on the part of the federalists. 
The most that was or might be said with any force, by way of rejoinder, 
was, that Mr. Adams had made no removals of conseqvience, and none 
from party considerations, most of the incumbents having been appointed 
by Gen. Washington, against whose administration no organized opposi- 
tion was formed, and before the republican party could be fairly said to 
have had existence. Great, however, as was the clamor of the opposi- 
tion, the number of removals from important offices during his whole 
administration, has been given as less than forty, which, although nearly 
equal to all others made to the close of John Quincy Adams's adminis- 
tration, bears no comparison to the extent to which proscription for 
opinion's sake has since been carried. 

Great objection was made to appointments which Mr. Adams made 
during, and after the ballotings in the house for president. Filling 
offices so near the close of his term of office, Mr. Jefferson considered as 
an infringement of his prerogative, and as being void. The commissions 
of several of them had been executed, but not having been delivered, Mr. 
Jefferson suppressed them, and made new appointments. The judges 
appointed in conformity with the provisions of the new judiciary act 
holding their offices during good behavior, and not being removable, the 
act, as has already been stjited, was repealed at the next session of con- 
gress, rather from the motive, as the federalists suspected, of nullifying 
Mr. Adams's " midnight appointments," as they were termed, than for 
the alleged reason that an additional number of judges was unnecessary. 

In a letter to Mr. Gilco, of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson wrote, March 23 : 
" Some principles have been the subject of conversation, but not of 
determination; e. g., all appointments to civil offices during pleasure, 
made after the event of the election was certainly known to Mr. Adams, 
arc considered as nullities. I do not view the persons appointed as even 
candidates for the office, but make others without noticing or notifying 
them. 2. Officers who have been guilty of official misconduct are sub- 



APPOINTMENTS. 201 

jects of removal. 3. Grood men to whom there is no objection but dif- 
ference of political principle, practiced on only as far as the right of a pri- 
vate citizen will justify, are not proper subjects of removal, except in the 
cases of attorneys and marshals. The courts being so decidedly federal 
and irremovable, it is believed that republican attorneys and marshals, 
being the doors of entry into the courts, are indispensably necessary as 
a shield to the republican part of our fellow-citizens, which, I believe, is 
the main body of the people. These principles are yet to be considered 
of, and I sketch them to you in confidence." 

To Mr. Gerry he wrote, March 28 : " Mr. Adams's last appointments, 
when he knew he was naming aids and counsellors for me, and not for 
himself, I set aside, as far as depends on me. Officers who have been 
guilty of gross abuses of office, such as marshals packing juries, &c , I 
shall now remove, as my predecessors ought in justice to have done. 
The instances will be few, and governed by strict rule, not party passion. 
The right of opinion shall suffer no invasion from me. Those who have 
acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me 
in opinion." 

In a letter to Gideon Granger, May 3, he wrote : " The clergy who 
have missed their union with the state, the Anglemen, who have missed 
their union with England, and the political adventjirers, who have lost 
the chance of swindling and plunder in the waste of public money, will 
never cease to bawl, on the breaking up of their sanctuary. But among 
the people the schism is healed, and with tender treatment the wound 
m\\ not reopen. The quondam leaders have been astounded with the 
suddenness of the desertion ; and their silence and appearance of 
acquiescence have proceeded, not from a thought of joining us, but the 
uncertainty what ground to take. The very first acts of the administra- 
tion, the nominations, have accordingly furnished something to yelp on ; 
and all our subsequent acts will furnisli them fresh matter, because there 
is nothing against which human ingenuity will not be able to find some- 
thing to say." 

To Levi Lincoln, July 11, 1801 : " The consolidation of our fellow- 
citizens in general, is the great object we ought to keep in view ; and 
that being once obtained, while we associate with us in affairs, to a 
certain degree, the federal sect of republicans, we must strip of all the 
means of influence the Essex junto, and their associate monocrats in 
every part of the Union. The former differ from us only in the shades 
of power to be given to the executive, being, with us, attached to repub- 
lican government. The latter wish to sap the republic by fraud, if 
they cannot destroy it by force, and to erect an English monarchy in itw 
place. We are proceeding gradually in the regeneration of offices, and 



262 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

introducing republicans to some share in them. I do not know that it 
will be pushed further than was settled before you went away, except aa 
to Essex men. I must ask you to make out a list of those in office in 
yours and the neighboring states, and to furnish me with it." [Ap- 
pendixj Note C] 

The 7th congress assembled at Washington, December 7, 1801. 
Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, a republican, was elected speaker 
of the house of representatives. In the senate, Abraham Baldwin, of 
Georgia, for many years a member of the house, was elected president 
pro tern ; the majorities in both houses being republican. 

Instead of making his first communication to congress by personal ad- 
dress, as had been the practice, he adopted that by message, as used on 
subsequent occasions through the session. The reasons for this course, 
assigned in a letter to both houses, were, " the convenience of the legis- 
lature, the economy of their time, and their relief from the embarrass- 
ment of immediate answers on subjects not yet fully before them." 

The president announced to congress " on the grounds of reasonable 
certainty, that the wars and troubles which had for so many years afflict- 
ed our sister nations, had at length come to an end, and that the commu- 
nications of peace and commerce were once more opening among them." 
Peace and friendship generally prevailed among the Indian tribes. He 
stated briefly the difficulty with the bey of Tripoli. Dissatisfied with 
the sum paid him in purchase of the late treaty, he had demanded more 
without any shadow of right, and threatened war in case of a refusal. 
The president had sent out a small squadron of frigates to the Mediter- 
ranean to protect our commerce ; and the danger had been dispelled. 
One of the Tripolitan cruisers had been captured by an American 
schooner. 

A prominent object of recommendation was a reduction of the public 
expenditures. Offices and officers he thought had been unnecessarily 
multiplied ; and he had already begun to reduce those dependent on ex- 
ecutive discretion. The expenses of diplomatic agency had also been 
diminished. But the great mass of offices were created by law, and the 
law-making power alone could abolish them. The military establishment 
was too large for a state of peace. Other topics were noticed, among 
which was an alteration of the naturalization law. 

An act was passed, at this session for the apportionment of representa- 
tives according to the second census. The ratio of 33,000 was readopted. 
Also an act for the protection of our commerce and seamen against the 
Tripolitan cruisers ; an act fixing the military peace establishment, by 
which the army was much reduced, and a military academy established 
at West Point ; an ac* regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes 



PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 203 

and to preserve peace on the frontiers ; an act for the repeal of internal 
duties on stills and domestic distilled spirits, refined sugars, licenses tc 
retailers, sales at auction, carriages, stamped paper, &c.; an act appro- 
priating annually $7,300,000 to the sinking fund for the payment of the 
public debt. The state of the treasury, however, did not admit of the 
appropriation ; consequently the act was inoperative. 

An act was also passed ooncerning naturalization. By the first act 
passed on this subject, in 1-790, an alien might be admitted as a citizen, 
at any time after a two years' residence, on application to the proper 
court of any state in which he had resided for one year. By the act of 
1795, a residence of five years was required, and the application was to 
be made three years before admission. In 1798, the year of the passage 
of the alien and sedition laws, a naturalization act was passed, requiring 
a residence of fourteen years, the application to be made five years before 
admission. The act passed this year, (1802) restored the term of resi- 
dence to five years, and that of the previous application 'to three years. 

An act to enable the people of the eastern division of the north-west- 
ern territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the 
admission of such state (Ohio) into the union, was passed. 

Near the close of Mr. Adams' administration, an adjustment was 
made with Great Britain of the claims of her citizens upon citizens of 
the United States, for debts contracted prior to the revolution, and 
which had been assumed by our government in Jay's treaty. The 
amount agreed upon, was $2,644,000 ; to be paid in three annual instal- 
ments. An act was passed at this session making the necessary appro- 
priations for the payment of these British debts. 

The great measure of Mr. Jefi"erson's administration was the purchase 
of Louisiana. The reacquisition of this territory from Spain was an 
object much desired by Napoleon. It being rumored in England and 
France, that, by a secret treaty, Spain had ceded Louisiana and the 
Floridas to France, Mr. King, our minister at London, in a letter 
dated March 29, 1801, informed our government of the rumor, and ex- 
pressed the opinion that such treaty had been actually executed, and his 
apprehension " that this cession was intended to have, and might actually 
produce, effects injurious to the union and consequent happiness of the 
people of the United States." This apprehension was founded upon the 
known opinion of certain influential persons in France, " that nature had 
marked a line of separation between the people of the United States liv- 
mg upon the two sides of the range of mountains which divides their ter- 
ritory." This acquisition of Louisiana would give to France the com- 
mand of the mouth of the Mississippi, and consequently the control of 
the trade of the western states ; and it was suspected as being possibly a 
part of her design to effect a union ultimately with these states. 



204 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

It is unnecessary to say, that the United States were anxious to pre- 
vent this apprehended transfer of the territory in question ; and our 
ministers in France and Spain, Robert R. Livingston and Charles 
Pinckney, were instructed, if the cession had not been made, to use their 
endeavors to defeat the project; and Mr. Pinckney was particularly re- 
quested (May 11, 1802,) if Spain should retain New Oi-leans and the 
Floridas, to endeavor " to obtain the arrangement by which the terri- 
tory on the east side of the Mississippi, including New Orleans, might 
be ceded to the United States, and the Mississippi made a common 
boundary, with a common use of 4ts navigation for them and Spain." 
But notwithstanding the denial of the fact Qn the part of the French 
government to Mr. Livingston, and persisted in for a year, the cession 
had been made as early as October, 1800. 

By the treaty between the United States and Spain, of October 27, 
1795, our western boundary was fixed in the middle of the Mississippi 
down to the 31st degree of north latitude; and the navigation of the 
whole breadth of the river from its source to the ocean, was to be free 
to the subjects and citizens of both countries ; and in consequence of 
these stipulations, the citizens of the United States were to be permitted 
for three years, to use the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit and 
exportation for their merchandise ; which privilege was to be thereafter 
continued, if not prejudicial to Spain ; and if not continued there, " an 
equivalent establishment " was to be assigned for this purpose at some 
other place on the bank of the Mississippi. But, notwithstanding these 
plain stipulations, the use of the port of New Orleans was suddenly 
interrupted by the intendant of the province of Louisiana at New Or- 
leans, on the pretext that, " with the publication of the ratification of 
the treaty of Amiens, and the reestablishment of the communication be- 
tween the English and Spanish subjects, the inconvenience [of the privi- 
lege granted by the treaty] had ceased;" adding, that the "toleration 
could be no longer consented to without an express order from the king." 

Information of this interruption of trade was communicated to con- 
gress by the president the 30th of December, 1802. On the 7th of 
January, 1803, the house of representatives adopted a resolution, in 
which they declared, that, while " willing to ascribe this breach of com- 
pact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals," they held 
it to be their duty " to express their unalterable determination to main- 
tain the boundaries and the rights of navigation and commerce through 
the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties." This aflfair 
was made the subject of communication to both Mr. Pinckney and to 
Mr. Livingston. 

The empty declaration, bj congress, of a determination to maintain 



PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 205 

the rights of our citizens, was not satisfactory to the western people, who 
expected some prompt, direct, and effective measure of redress. In re- 
sponse to their continued complaints, resolutions were introduced into 
the senate by Mr. Ross, an opposition senator from Pennsylvania, au- 
thorizing the president to take possession of New Orleans, and providing 
a force of 50,000 men ; and an appropriation of $5,000,000. This pro- 
position failed ; but a law was passed, authorizing the president, when- 
ever he should judge it expedient, to require the executives of such states 
as he should think proper, to hold in readiness a detachment of militia 
not exceeding 80,000. An appropriation of $1,500,000 was made for 
subsisting the troops, purchasing military stores, and defraying other 
necessary expenses : and $25,000 was appropriated for erecting arsenals 
on the western waters, and for furnishing them with arms and ammuni- 
tion. Prior, however, to the passage of this act, a letter was received 
from Gov. Claiborne, of the Mississii^pi territory, inclosing one from the 
governor of Louisiana, saying that the suspension of deposits by the in- 
tendant was without orders from the Spanish government, and that the 
measure did not accord with his judgment. The matter would be com- 
municated to the governor of Havana, who had some kind of superinten- 
dence over the authorities at New Orleans. 

Mr. Livingston, writing to the secretary of state, April 24, 1802, said 
he had not yet received answers to his inquiries in relation to the 
rumored cession, — what its boundaries were, what were the intentions of 
France respecting it, and when they were to take possession ; and it was 
still uncertain whether the Floridas were included in the cession. Ho 
was, however, himself confident that such was the fact, and that the gov- 
ernment was fitting out an armament to take possession ; the number of 
troops to be from five to seven thousand, and to sail for New Orleans, 
unless the state of affairs in St. Domingo should change their destina- 
tion. The anticipation of the occupation, by France, of the acquired 
territory, caused the deepest solicitude on the part of our government, 
and a determination to efi'eet, if possible, a reversal of the cession. Mr. 
Livingston endeavored to convince the French government that it would 
not be advantageous to France to take possession of Louisiana. The 
cession of the territory to her, however, might be turned to her advan- 
tage, if she would avail herself of it in the only way which sound policy 
dictated. (He spoke of Louisiana proper, without including the Flori- 
das. ) The way in which to secure this advantage was : having acquired 
the right to navigate the Mississippi, and a free trade, she could secure 
a vent for a vast variety of her commodities in the western states, by 
proper arrangements with the United States. It would be necessary to 
afford them cheaper than those they received from Great Britain. This 



20B* 



THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



she could do by interesting the American merchant in their sale, and by 
engaging the government of the United States to give them a preference. 
These objects might be attained by ceding New Orleans to the United 
States, reserving to herself the right of entry without the payment of 
higher duties than were exacted from vessels of the United States, and 
the right to navigate the Mississippi. This would enable France to 
carry her fabrics into all the western territory. She would command 
the respect without exciting the fear of the two nations whose friendship 
was most important to her commerce, and to the preservation of her 
islands : and all this without the expense of maintaining colonial estab- 
lishments. But should France retain New Orleans, and endeavor to 
colonize Louisiana, she would render herself an object of jealousy to 
Spain, the United States, and Great Britain, who would discourage her 
commerce, and compel her to make expensive establishments for the 
security of her rights. 

The object of our government seems to have been to purchase New 
Orleans and the Floridas ; for, although the latter was not included in 
the cession, it was suggested by Mr. Livingston, that France could ac- 
quire it by an exchange with Spain, returning her Louisiana, retaining 
New Orleans, and then give the latter and Florida for our debt. In a 
letter to Mr. Madison of December 20, 1802, Mr. Livingston, although 
not sanguine of success, had such encouragement as to think it advisable 
to ask for instructions " how to act in case favorable circumstances should 
arise." The armament for Louisiana, he said, had not yet sailed. 

Before this letter was received, the president, contemplating the ces- 
sion of Louisiana to France, in connection with the affair at New Or- 
leans, determined to take measures most likely, not only to reestablish 
our present rights, but to effect their enlargement and security. The 
importance of the crisis, he thought, demanded the experiment of an ex- 
traordinary mission ; and he appointed Mr. Monroe, as an associate of 
Mr. Livingston, and also of Mr. Pinckney, if it should be necessary, in 
treating with the Spanish government. The instructions were to pro- 
cure, if possible, a cession of New Orleans and the Floridas. Informa- 
tion of this appointment was communicated by Madison to Mr. Living- 
ston under date of the 18th of January, 1803. 

On the 24th, Mr. Livingston wrote, informing our government of the 
appointment of General Bernadotte, brother-in-law of Joseph Bonaparte, 
as minister to the United States. This letter spoke discouragingly ; and 
an accompanying dispatch appeared to assume that Florida also was 
ceded to France. But on the 3rd of March, he wrote that it was still in 
the hands of Spain. 

A direct negotiation had been commenced before the arrival of Mr. 



PURCHASE OP LOUISIANA. 207 

Monroe, and was successfully terminated about a month afterward, with 
Marbois, minister of the treasurj'^ whom the first consul preferred to 
Talleyrand, for tbis business. From the voluminous correspondence on 
this subject, it may be inferred, that, among the considerations which 
facilitated the negotiation, -vyere these : First, Apprehensions that Great 
Britain would take possession of that territory, and transfer it to the 
United States ; it being generally known that that government was averse 
to its occupation by France. A confirmation of this fact had recently 
been given by the London papers, in which was a proposition for raising 
fifty thousand men to take New Orleans. Second, The apprehension 
that the United States themselves would take possession ; information 
having been received of the passage of the resolution by congress to 
maintain the rights guaranteed by the treaty with Spain, and of the in- 
troduction of the more recent resolutions of Mr. Ross in the senate, pro- 
prosing to raise a force to take New Orleans. Third, A pressing want 
of money on the part of Napoleon. 

The first definite proposition appears to have come from the first con- 
sul, through Marbois, which was, that the United States should give one 
hundred millions of francs, pay their own claims, and take the whole 
country. To which Mr. Livingston replied, " that the United States 
were anxious to preserve peace with France ; that, for that reason, they 
wished to remove them to the west side of the Mississippi ; that we 
would be perfectly satisfied with New Orleans and the Floridas, and had 
no disposition to extend across the river ; that, of course, we would not 
give any great sum for the purchase. Mr. L., being pressed to name a 
sum they would give, told Marbois, that they had no authority to go to 
a sum that bore any proportion to what he had mentioned ; but that as 
he had himself considered the demand too high, he would oblige them by 
telling what he thought would be reasonable. He replied, that if they 
would name sixty millions, and pay the American claims, about twenty 
millions more, he would communicate the offer to the first consul. Mr. 
L. told him " that it was vain to ask any thing that was so greatly be- 
yond our means ; that true policy would dictate to the first consul not 
to press such a demand ; that he must know that it must render the pre- 
sent government (of the United States) unpopular, and have a tendency, 
at the next election, to throw the power into the hands of men who were 
most hostile to a connection with France ; and that this would probably 
happen in the midst of a war." Marbois feared the consul would not 
relax. Mr. L. asked him to press upon the consul the argument that 
the country was not worth the price asked, together with the danger of 
seeing the country pass into the hands of Great Britain. He told him 
that he had seen the ardor of the Americans to take it by force, and the 



208 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

difficulty with which they were restrained by the prudence of the presi- 
dent ; that he must easily see how much the hands of the war party 
would be strengthened, when they learned that France was on the eve 
of a rupture with England. In the same interview, Marbois was asked 
whether, in case of a purchase, France would stipulate never to possess 
the Floridas, and that she would aid us to procure them; to which he 
replied in the affirmative. 

Although the ministers had no instructions to purchase Louisiana, the 
thing not having been contemplated — perhaps never before thought of; 
but the offiir to sell having been made by Bonaparte, and the great value 
of the acquisition to the United States being considered, our ministers 
were induced to assume the responsibility of transcending their author- 
ity. The conference sketched above, took place on the 13th of April, 
and on the 30th, the treaty was signed by the parties to the negotiation. 

Among the stipulations of the treaty was one conceding to the vessels 
of France and Spain coming directly from any part of their respective 
dominions, loaded only with the products of the same, the right, for 
twelve years, to enter the ports of the ceded territory on the same terms 
as vessels of the United States coming directly from the same countries. 
Daring this time, no other nation was to enjoy the same privileges ; and 
thereafter, France was to enjoy the footing of the most favored nations. 
The sum to be paid was 60,000,000 francs, and the French debt which 
was not to exceed 20,000,000 ; the precise amount not having been ascer- 
tained. An investigation of the claims was provided for in the treaty. 
The French debt having been subsequently determined to be $3,750,000, 
the whole purchase amounted to $15,000,000. The treaty consisted of 
three separate parts ; the first being properly the treaty of cession. This 
was followed by two conventions, the first of which contained the stipu- 
lation for the payment of the 60,000,000 francs in six per cent, stock, 
interest to be paid half yearly ; the principal to be paid in annual in- 
stalments of not less than three millions of dollars, to commence fifteen 
years after the exchange of ratifications. The other convention stipulated 
the payment of the claims of American citizens against France, and 
established the mode of determining them. 

Thus was obtained, in consequence of an unexpected ofier of Bona- 
parte, and contrary to the instructions of our government and to the 
constitution, an acquisition to the United States of incalculable value. 
Mr. Jefferson admitted this purchase and " annexation" to be unauthor- 
ized, and proposed an ex post facto amendment of the constitution, to 
give sanction to the measure, but which was never attempted. 

Mr. Monroe, soon after his departure from the United States, waa 
appointed (April 18, 1803,) minister to Great Britain, whither he pro- 



PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 209 

ceeded after the conclusion of the treaty at Paris, to take the place of 
Mr. King, who wished to return, having represented the United States 
at London seven years. 

As the exchange of ratifications was to be made within six months from 
the date of the treaty, it became necessary for the president to convene 
congress before the regular day of its meeting, in order to submit the 
treaty to the senate for approval. Congress was accordingly assembled 
on the 1 7th of October ; and on the 20th it was ratified by that body, 
ten days before the expiration of the six months. On the 31st, an act 
was passed for taking possession of the territory, and for its temporary 
government ; on the 1 0th of November, an act was passed for creating 
a stock to the amount of $11,250,000, to be paid to France ; and an act 
providing for the payment of the claims of our citizens. 

By the treaty of 1800, between France and Spain, it was agreed that, 
in case of the cession of the Louisiana territory by France, Spain was 
to be preferred. The necessary haste in concluding the treaty did not 
admit of a previous consultation with the Spanish government. Dis- 
pleased with this violation of a treaty engagement on the part of France, 
that government withheld its assent to the late cession to the United 
States, for nearly a year. 

Before the close of the session, an act was passed dividing Louisiana 
into two territories. All that portion, lying south of the Mississippi 
territory, and of an east and west line from the river, at the 33d de- 
gree of north latitude, to the western boundary of the territory, was to 
constitute the territory of Orleans ; and the residue was to be called the 
district of Louisiana. There being within this district but few inhabi- 
tants, and these chiefly residing along the river in villages of which the 
principal was St. Louis, the district, for the purpose of government, was 
placed under the jurisdiction of Indiana, then comprising all the original 
north-western territory, except the state of Ohio which had been recently 
formed, (1802.) 

In that part of the act relating to the government of the territory of 
Orleans, was a provision prohibiting the bringing of slaves into it from 
beyond the limits of the United States, or from any of the states such as 
had been imported since the 1st of May, 1798, under a penalty of three 
hundred dollars ; and the slaves were to be free. The introduction of 
this provision into the law is said to have been the result of a memorial 
of an abolition convention, praying congress to prohibit the farther im- 
portation of slaves into the purchased territory. At the same session. 
a committee of the house, acting upon an unfavorable report made at the 
preceding session on a memorial from a convention of the people of 
Indiana asking for a suspension of the anti-slavery article of the ordinance 

14 



210 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of 1787, reported in favor of such suspension for ten years ! Slaves bom 
within the United States only were to be admitted ; and their descendants 
were to be free, males at twenty-five, and females at twenty-one years of 
age. No action was taken on the report. A similar application to con- 
gress from the same territory three years afterward, also failed, after 
having again received a favorable report. 

An act was also passed, further to protect our commerce against the 
Barbary powers ; the expense of equipping and manning the necessary 
vessels, to be provided for by increasing the duties on imports two and 
a half per cent., and if imported in foreign vessels, ten per cent. ; the 
money thus raised to be called the " Mediterranean fund." 

At this session, by the constitutional majority of two-thirds, the 
change in the election of president and vice-president was proposed to 
the several states ; which, having been ratified by the requisite number 
of states, became a part [the 12th article of amendment] of the constitu- 
tion. Of the sixteen states, all but Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 
Delaware, were in favor of the amendment ; the ratification by three- 
fourths being necessary. 

Apprehensions were entertained of serious difficulties with Spain. A 
convention had been concluded with that government in August, 1802, 
for the adjustment of claims for spoliations upon our commerce, and for 
depredations of French cruisers which had been harbored in the ports 
of Spain, where the prizes had been condemned. By the terms of the 
treaty, the claims were to be adjusted by a joint board of commissioners 
appointed by both governments. But the ratification had been refused 
by Spain,* her displeasure having been excited by our acquisition of 
Louisiana, and the establishment of a port of entry within what she 
claimed to be the boundaries of her Florida possessions. On being 
assured that there was no intention to take forcible possession of the 
territory, but that our claims in that quarter would be reserved for 
future discussion, her assent to the cession of Louisiana was given. The 
treaty for the settlement of claims, however, the king of Spain refused to 
ratify until the 9th of July, 1818, nearly sixteen years after it was con- 
cluded and signed at Madrid by Mr. Charles Piuckney and Pedro 
Cevallos. It was proclaimed by president Monroe, December 22, 1818. 

The question as to the true boundaries of Louisiana was long in dis- 
pute. As held by France prior to 1763, the territory extended west to 
the Rio Bravo, or Rio del Norte, (now commonly called Rio Grande,) 
and east of the Mississippi to the river Perdido, which separated it from 
the Spanish province of Florida. The eastern part was transferred to 
Great Britain, and with some additional territory ceded by Spain, called 
West Florida. Therefore as Spain received it from France, it was 



BOUNDARY TREATY WITH ENGLAND. 211 

bounded on the east by tbe Mississippi river and lakes Pontcharterain 
and Borgne. In 1783, the Floridas were restored to Spain. Now, did 
Spain, by this restoration, acquire the western portion of Florida to the 
Mississippi, which she did not originally receive from France ; but which 
belonged to France before the cession of 1763 ? In other words, did 
the United States receive the original Louisiana as owned by France ; 
or Louisiana as received from France by Spain ? The territory con- 
veyed was described in the treaty, as " the colony or province of Louis- 
iana, with the same extent as it now has in the hands of Spain, and that 
it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the 
treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states." 
This language would of course admit different constructions. Mr. Liv- 
ingston considered the cession as including all originally owned by 
France, except what Spain might have ceded to other nations by subse- 
quent treaties. 

A formal delivery of the territory was made on the 20 th of December, 
1803, in the city of New Orleans, by the French commissioner, Laussaut, 
to Gov. Claibourne, of the Mississippi territory, and Gen. James Wilkin- 
son, who received the ceded territory on the part of the United States. 
Nothing official passed on that occasion concerning the boundaries ; but 
Laussaut confidentially signified, that the territory did not include any 
part of West Florida, but that it extended westwardly to the del Norte. 
Orders were accordingly obtained from the Spanish authorities for the de- 
livery of all the posts on the west side of the river and on the island of New 
Orleans. No orders were given to our commissioners to demand those 
in West Florida ; first, because it was presumed, that the demand would 
be rejected by the Spanish authority at New Orleans, and that the 
French commissioner would not support it; secondly, because, if 
opposed by him, our title would be weakened, and in either of the cases, 
we should be prematurely compelled to choose between an overt submis- 
sion to the refusal and a resort to force ; thirdly, because mere silence 
would be no bar to a plea, at any time, that a delivery of a part, parti- 
cularly of the seat of government, was a virtual delivery of the whole ; 
whilst, in the mean time, we could ascertain the views, and claim the 
interposition of the French government, and avail ourselves of any favor- 
able circumstances for effecting an amicable adjustment with the govern- 
ment of Spain. 

In May, 1803, Mr. King, our minister at London, concluded a troaty 
adjusting the boundary line between the two nations. On the 24th of 
October it was laid before the senate. Although the president, in his 
message communicating the treaty, had expressed his approval of it, in 
the ratification the 5th article was excepted; and the treaty, thus 



212 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

amended, was sent back to the British government for concurrence. In 
the letter accompanying the treaty from Mr. Madison, secretary of state, 
to Mr. Monroe, who had succeeded Mr. King, the reason alleged for ex- 
cepting the 5th article was, that as it was of a later date than the last 
convention with France, ceding Louisiana to the Uijited States, the line 
to be run in pursuance of the 5 th article might be found or alleged to 
abridge the northern extent of that territory. Expunging this article 
would leave the boundary where it was when Louisiana was in posses- 
sion of France, and subject to future friendly negotiation. And con- 
sidering the remoteness of the time when a line would become necessary, 
the postponement was deemed to be of little consequence. Great Bri- 
tain did not consent to the proposed amendment ; and the boundary line 
continued in dispute for more than thirty years. 



CHAPTEK XV. 

MR. Jefferson's re-election. — relations with France and Eng- 
land. TREATY WITH THE LATTER REJECTED. AFFAIR OF THE 

CHESAPEAKE. SLAVE TRADE ABOLISHED. 

Near the close of the session of 1804, a caucus of the republican 
members was held for the nomination of candidates for president and 
vice-president. Mr. Jefferson was nominated for reelection. Mr. Burr, 
not being generally acceptable to the party, was dropped, and George 
Clinton, of New York, was selected as the candidate for vice-president. 
The federal candidates were Charles C. Pinckney and Rufus King. 
Jefferson and Clinton were elected almost unanimously, having received 
each 162 of the electoral votes to 14 given for their opponents ; the lat- 
ter having received only the votes of Connecticut, (9,) of Delaware, (3,) 
and 2 of the 1 1 votes of Maryland. 

Mr. Jefferson differed essentially from his predecessors in his views of 
the means of national defense. They had encouraged an effective fortifi- 
cation of our harbors, and the maintenance of an efficient navy. Mr. 
Jefferson supposed an adequate defense could be provided at a far less 
expense. At the session of 1803, an act was passed, authorizing the 
president to procure the building of fifteen small vessels called "gun- 
boats," for which $50,000 were appropriated. The treaty with France 
having remove! the occasion for any additional armament, the money 



NATIONAL DEFENSE " GUN-BOATS." 21 S 

was not then expended. Ccnfident, however, of the efficiency of these 
vessels, he contemplated the gradual extension of this system as a sub- 
stitute for that which was then in operation. In his annual message of 
November, 1804, he informed congress that the building of the boats 
under the act of 1803, was in a course of execution, and recommended 
to congress to provide for their increase from year to year. His plan, 
elsewhere expressed, was to build about two hundred and fifty of these 
boats, twenty-five every year, for ten years. 

The advantages of this species of vessels enumerated in the message, 
were, " their utility toward supporting within our waters the authority 
of the laws ; the promptness with which they will be manned by the sea- 
men and militia of the place the moment they are wanting ; the facility 
of their assembling from different parts of the coast to any point where 
they are required in greater force than ordinary ; the economy of their 
maintenance and preservation from decay when not in actual service ; 
and the competence of our finances to this defensive provision without 
any new burthen." The intended mode of " preservation from decay " 
was to haul them up under sheds, whence they could be readily launched 
when wanted. The expense of these two hundred and fifty boats he esti- 
mated at only about one million of dollars. Congress, however, not 
sufficiently confident of the success of the plan, appropriated only 
$60,000 for the building of not exceeding twenty-five boats. In April, 
1806, fifty more were authorized ; and in December, 1807, not exceeding 
one hundred and eighty-eight.. This system of cheap marine, however, 
having been found inefficient, became very unpopular, and scarcely sur- 
vived the period of his administration. Indeed, two years before its 
close, congress, against his own recommendation, refused to make an ap- 
propriation for this object. 

As a substitute for the usual expensive fortifications, the president 
proposed heavy cannon, mounted on carriages, to be conveyed to any 
places on the coast or banks of our navigable waters where they might 
be wanted to resist the approach of an enemy. 

Among the acts passed at the second session of the 8th congress, 
(1804-5,) the last of Mr. Jefferson's first term, was an act to divide the 
Indiana territory into two separate governments. By this act, the ter- 
ritory of Michigan was formed, and provision made for its temporary 
government. 

The inhabitants of Orleans territory, being dissatisfied with their gov- 
ernment, petitioned congress for the privilege of forming a state govern- 
ment. An act was passed, authorizing the president to establish within 
the territory a government similar to that of the Mississippi territory. 
There was to be a legislature like that provided by the ordinance of con- 



214 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

gress of 1787; an assembly elected by the people, and a legislative 
council. [See Ordinance of 1787.] And the inhabitants, when they 
should number 60,000, might form a state constitution and be admitted 
into the union. 

The district of Louisiana, formerly under the jurisdiction of Indiana, 
was formed into a separate district with a government of its own, and 
called the territory of Louisiana ; the governor to be appointed by the 
president, and the legislative power to be vested in the governor and 
judges, with power also to establish courts. 

On the 4th of March, 1805, Mr. Jefferson was inaugurated the second 
time as president of the United States. In his inaugural address, he 
alluded, in general terms, to the policy of his administration towards 
foreign nations. " Justice had been done them on all occasions ; and 
mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms had been 
cherished." Respecting his domestic policy he said : " The suppression 
of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us 
to discontinue our internal taxes. These, covering our land with officers, 
and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that pro- 
cess of domiciliary vexation, which, once entered, is scarcely to be re- 
strained from reaching successively every article of produce and property. 
* * * The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, 
is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to do- 
mestic comforts ; being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and 
incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citi^ns, it may be 
the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what 
mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer in the United States ? 
These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the 
government, to fulfill contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the 
native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to ap- 
ply such a surplus to our public debts, as places at a short day their final 
redemption, and that redemption once effected, the revenue thereby 
liberated may, by a just repartition among the states, and a correspond- 
ing amendment of the constitution, be applied, in time of peace ^ to rivers, 
canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects 
within each state. In time of war . . . aided by other resources reserved 
for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year, 
without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burdening 
them with the debts of the past." 

In reference to the acquisition of Louisiana he said, it " has been dis- 
approved by some, from a candid apprehension that the enlargement of 
our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent 
to which the federative principle may operate effectively ? The larger 



Jefferson's second inauguraticn. 215 

our association, the less will it be shaken by local passions; and, in any 
view, is it not better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be 
settled by our own brethren and children, than by strangers of another 
family ? With which shall we be most likely to live in harmony and 
friendly intercourse ?" 

His philanthropic regard for the Indians is thus expressed : " Endow- 
ed with the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love of 
liberty and independence^ and occupying a country which left them no 
desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from 
other regions directed itself on these shores ; without power to divert, or 
habits to contend against, they have been overwhelmed by the current, 
or driven before it ; now reduced within limits too narrow for the hunt- 
er's state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domes- 
tic arts ; to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them 
to maintain their place in existence, and to prepare them for that state 
in society, which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind 
and morals. We have therefore liberally furnished them with the im- 
plements of husbandry and household use; we placed among them 
instructors in the arts of first necessity ; and they are covered with the 
aegis of the law against aggressors from among ourselves." But there 
were "powerful obstacles to encounter;" among which was " the influ- 
ence of crafty individuals among them who now felt themselves some- 
thing, and feared to become nothing in any other order of things. * * 
They too have their anti-philosophers who find an interest in keeping 
things in their present state, who dread reformation, and exert all their 
faculties to maintain the ascendency of habit over the duty of improving 
our reason and obeying its mandates." 

He spoke of the abuses of the press in opposing his administration. 
" They might have been corrected by the wholesome punishments re- 
served and provided by the laws of the several states against falsehood 
and defamation ; but public duties more urgent press on the time of 
public servants, and the ofi'enders have therefore been left to find their 
punishment in the public indignation." The experiment had been suc- 
cessfully tried, " whether a government, conducting itself in the true 
spirit of its constitution, with zeal and purity, and doing no act which it 
would be unwilling the whole world should witness, can be written down 
by falsehood and defamation." He approved the enforcing of state laws 
against false and defamatory publications as conducive to public morals 
and public tranquillity ; but " the experiment is noted, to prove that^ 
since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opin- 
ions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no 
other legal restraint." 



216 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

He congratulated the country on " the union of sentiment now mani- 
fested so generally, as arguing harmony and happiness to our future 
course." Others would rally to the same point ; " facts were piercing 
through the veil drawn over them ;" and the " doubting would at length 
think and act with the mass of their fellow-citizens." 

The 9th congress commenced its 1st session the 2d of December, 1805. 
The message of the president was chiefly devoted to our foreign relations, 
which it represented as being in an unfavorable condition. He said : — 
" Our coasts have been infested and our harbors watched by private 
armed vessels, some of them without commissions, some with illegal 
commissions, others with those of legal form, but committing piratical 
acts beyond the authority of their commissions. They have captured in 
the very entrance of our harbors, as well as in the high seas, not only 
the vessels of our friends coming to trade with us, but our own also." 
Allusion was herein made to the French and Spanish cruisers who infest- 
ed our southern coast, annoying our commerce with the West Indies. 

He referred also to the unsettled difficulties with Spain. She still 
refused to ratify the treaty which provided compensation for spoliations 
during the former European war ; and had renewed the same practice 
since the renewal of that war. On the Mobile, our commerce was ob- 
structed by arbitrary duties and vexatious searches ; and she had re- 
jected propositions for adjusting amicably the boundaries of Louisiana. 
Inroads had been made into the territories of Orleans and the Missis- 
sippi, and our citizens plundered in the very ports which had been de- 
livered up by Spain : and he had found it necessary to order troops to 
the frontier to protect our citizens and repel future aggressions. Other 
details would be the subject of another communication. 

The message also noticed the conduct of Great Britain. " The same 
system of hovering on our coasts and harbors under color of seeking ene- 
mies has been also carried on by public armed ships, to the great annoy- 
ance and oppression of our commerce. New principles, too, have been 
interpolated into the law of nations, founded neither in justice nor the 
usage or acknowledgment of nations. According to these, a belligerent 
takes to himself a commerce with its own enemy which it denies to a 
neutral, on the ground of its aiding that enemy in the war. But reason 
revolts at such an inconsistency, and the neutral having equal right with 
the belligerent to decide the question, the interest of our constituents 
and the duty of maintaining the authority of reason, the only umpire be- 
tween just nations, impose on us the obligation of providing an effectual 
and determined opposition to a doctrine so injurious to the rights of 
peaceable nations." 

In the new European war, France, Holland, and Spain were allied 



RELATIONS "WITH rRANCE AND ENGLAND. v 217 

against Great Britain. The exposure to capture of the merchant ressels 
of the belligerent nations, had caused their withdrawal from the ocean : 
and the United States and other neutral maritime nations were enjoying 
an immensely profitable carrying trade, not only with the colonies of the 
belligerents, but with their mother countries, and on principles recog- 
nized by Great Britain herself. It was an established rule of national 
law, that the goods of a neutral^ consisting of articles not contraband 
of ivar, ill neutral vessels^ employed in a direct trade between a neutral 
and a belligerent country^ are protected^ except in 20O7'ts iiivested or 
blockaded. In conformity to this principle, a direct trade was carried 
on with the enemies of Great Britain and their colonies, and chiefly by 
American vessels ; and many of the goods imported by our merchants 
from those colonies, were reexported to their parent countries. Not 
well pleased to see American merchants so rapidly amassing fortunes, 
and her enemies receiving by American vessels the productions of their 
own colonies, without the hazard which would attend the transportation 
in their own vessels. Great Britain ordered the capture of our vessels, 
alleging that the trade was unlawful, on the principle, that a trade from 
a colony to its parent country^ not being permitted to other nations in 
a time of peace ^ can not be made lawful in a time of war ; that is to 
say, because these countries, in time of peace, monopolize the trade with 
their colonies, the United States might not avail themselves of the ad- 
vantages of a participation in this trade tendered to them in time of 
war. It was alleged, also, that the voyage was unbroken by the landing 
of the goods in a port of the United States, and paying duties there, 
and, therefore, that the cargo was subject to condemnation, even under 
the British regulation of 1798, which so far relaxed the general principle 
as to allow a direct trade between a belligerent colony and a neutral 
country carrying on such a trade. 

These were the " new principles" which the president said " had been 
interpolated into the law of nations." The general principle, that a 
neutral nation is disallowed, in time of war, a trade not allowed in time 
of peace, was of modern date, assumed by Great Britain for her own 
special interest, and maintained by no other nation. It was contrary 
also to the practice of Great Britain herself. She had invariably re- 
laxed her navigation laws in time of war, so as to admit neutrals to 
trade where they were not allowed to trade in time of peace, particu- 
larly with her colonies. She had, by law and by orders in council, 
authorized her own subjects to trade directly with her enemies. And it 
was alleged that American vessels and cargoes, after having been con- 
demned by British courts under pretense of unlawful commerce, were 
sent, on British account, to the enemies of Great Britain ! 



213 ' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

These depredations upon American commerce produced great excite- 
ment and alarm among the merchants in commercial places. Memorials 
from merchants in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, and 
other places were sent to the president and to congress, on the subject, 
praying for the interposition of the government. The number of captures 
was large, and had been made principally by the British, a few by the 
French and Spanish privateers. Of the vessels captured, which had 
been insured in the Philadelphia insurance offices alone, there were 
more than seventy. The Philadelphia memorial pointed out the in- 
consistency of Great Britain. In 1801, it was held by her ministry 
and her courts, " that the produce of the colonies of the enemy 
may be imported by a neutral into his own country, and be reexported 
thence, even to the mother country of such colony;" and, " that landing 
the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country, breaks the con- 
tinuity of the voyage, and is such an importation as legalizes the trade, 
although the goods be reshipped in the same vessel, and on account of 
the same neutral proprietors, and forwarded for sale to the mother 
country." Now, in 1805, it is decided that the landing and paying 
duties does not break the continuity of the voyage. 

On the 17th of January, 1806, the president communicated the me- 
morials to congress, with a message in which he stated, that the right of 
a neutral to carry on commercial intercourse with every part of the 
dominions of a belligerent permitted by the laws of the country, (except 
blockaded ports and contraband of war,) had been recognized by Great 
Britain in the actual payment of damages awarded to the United States 
for the infraction of that right, in which award her own commissioners 
had concurred. He also noticed the impressment of our seamen by 
Great Britain. 

In answer to a resolution of the senate, Mr. Madison, secretary of 
state, communicated a statement of the various principles interpolated 
into the law of nations by Great Britain and France. Among those in- 
troduced by the latter, was a decree, that every privateer, of which two- 
thirds of the crew should not be either natives of England, or subjects 
of a power the enemy of France, should be considered as pirates ; and 
another, that every foreigner found on board the vessels of war or of 
commerce of the enemy, was to be treated as a prisoner of war, and 
could have no right to the protection of the diplomatic and commercial 
agents of his nation. Other unjustifiable innovations on the law of na- 
tions were found in a decree issued from St. Domingo, against our trade 
with the revolted blacks of that island. The secretary mentioned, as a 
unjustifiable measure, the mode of search practiced by British ships, an 
by the cruisers of France and Spain. Instead of remaining at a prope 



RELATIONE WITH FllANCE AND ENGLAND- 219 

distance from the vessel to be searched, and sending their own boat with 
a few men for the purpose, they compelled the vessel to send her papers 
in her own boat, and sometimes with great danger from the condition of 
the boat and the state of the weather. A report from the secretary of 
state, March 5, 1806, stated the number of American seamen impressed 
or detained by British ships of war or privateers whose names had been 
reported to the department since the statement made at the last session, 
to be 913, and the aggregate number since the commencement of the 
present war in Europe, 2273. An act was passed at this session, (Feb. 
13, 1806,) appropriating two millions of dollars " for defraying any ex- 
traordinary expenses attending the intercourse between the United 
States and foreign nations." The passage of this act was the occasion 
of much excited feeling in the house, and of a temporary defection of a 
portion of the democratic members. On the 6th of December, a confi- 
dential message on the subject of our difficulties with Spain, was sent to 
the house, submitting the question as to the employment of force in re- 
pelling her aggressions in Louisiana. The message, with the accompany- 
ing papers, having been read with closed doors, was refeiTcd to a select 
committee, of which John Randolph was chairman ; and who was in- 
formed by the president and Messrs. Madison and Gallatin, that really, 
instead of troops, money was wanted for the president, to be used in ne- 
gotiation for the purchase of Florida, or at least the western part of it. 
Randolph was told, also, says Hildreth, that, as things now stood, 
France would not allow Spain to adjust her differences with us ; that she 
wanted money, and that we must give it to her, or have a Spanish and 
French war. The reason for not asking openly for the money, has been 
supposed to be, that the president did not wish to subject the adminis- 
tration to the charge of inconsistency, by placing in the hands of the 
executive large sums of money for unknown objects, a practice which 
they had expressly condemned ; but preferred that the appropriation 
should appear to have been made by congress without solicitation. 

Mr. Randolph was much displeased at the attempt to raise the money 
in this covert manner; and the efforts of Mr Bidwell, of Massa- 
chusetts, who endeavored, at the instance of the president, to get the 
appropriation incorporated into the report were unsuccessful. The 
committee reported on the 3d of January, 1806, that the refusal of 
Spain to ratify the treaty of 1802, and to adjust the boundai-ies of 
Louisiana ; her taxing of our commerce on the Mobile ; and her viola- 
tions of our territory, afforded just cause of war : but the committee, 
rather than recommend any measure that would interrupt the prosperity 
of the country, reported a resolution in favor of raising a sufficient num- 
ber of troops to protect the southern territory against Spanish aj^gression. 



220 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mr. Bidwell then submitted a resolution proposing an aj propriation 
for the purpose of defraying any extraordinary expenses that might he 
incurred in foreign intercourse. The resolution of the committee was 
rejected, owing perhaps to the fact that, during the debate, one of the 
president's friends inadvertently disclosed his " secret wishes" to the 
house; and Mr. Bidwell's resolution for appropriating $2,000,000 was 
adopted. The act making the appropriation authorized the president to 
borrow the money at six per cent., and pledged for its reimbursement 
the extra duty of two and a half per cent., mentioned in a preceding 
chapter, as constituting the Mediterranean fund, which, peace having 
been made with Tripoli, was not wanted for the purpose intended. A 
resolution was adopted, however, declaring that " an exchange of terri- 
tory between the United States and Spain, would be the most advantageous 
mode of settling the existing differences about their respective bound- 
aries." 

On this question, and from this time, Mr. Kandolph and a few other 
republican members cooperated with the federalists, with whom he sub- 
sequently (1812) voted against the declaration of war. His opposition 
to the administration has been by some attributed to the refusal of Mr. 
Jefferson to appoint him to a foreign mission for which his friends had 
made application, though without his own solicitation. 

To appease the government of France, whose complaints had assumed 
a somewhat menacing aspect, an act was passed to suspend all commer- 
cial intercourse with the revolting blacks of St. Domingo. All persons 
residing in the United States were forbidden to trade with any person 
in any part of that island not in possession or under the acknowledged 
government of France, on pain of forfeiture of the vessel and cargo. 

To retaliate the impressment of our seamen and the infringement of 
our neutral rights, on the part of Great Britain, an act was passed, pro- 
hibiting the importation, from any of her ports, or of the ports of her 
colonies, any goods manufactured of leather, silk, hemp, tin, or brass ; low 
priced woolen cloths, window glass and glass ware, silver and plated 
ware, paper of every description, nails and spikes, hats, ready-made 
clothing, millinery, playing cards, beer, ale, porter, pictures and prints. 

An act was passed, authorizing the president, if he should deem it 
necessary, to call on the executives of the states for 100,000 militia, to 
be kept in readiness for immediate service ; and an act appropriating not 
exceeding $150,000 for fortifying forts and harbors, and not exceeding 
$250,000 for building the fifty gun-boats before mentioned. 

At this session was passed the act authorizing the construction of the 
Cumberland road ; a work which has been the subject of more frequent 
discussions and appropriations than almost any other public improve- 



TREATY WITH ENGLAND REJECTED. 221 

ment ever projected in this country. The road was to be made from 
Cumberland in Maryland, to tbe state of Ohio. It has since been con- 
tinued westward through several states. 

To carry out the intention of the act appropriating the money for the 
purchase of Florida, the president appointed General Armstrong, of New 
York, and Mr. Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, as joint commissioners with 
those of Spain, to settle our difficulties with that country. They met at 
Paris. It was hoped that the influence of the French government might 
aid in eff'ecting the desired consummation. The negotiation, however, 
was unsuccessful. Mr. Bowdoin was at the time minister to Spain. Mr. 
Charles Pinckney having desired to be recalled, Mr. Bowdoin had been 
appointed to succeed him. 

It will be recollected, that the first ten articles of the treaty negoti- 
ated by Mr. Jay, in 1794, were permanent, and that the articles regu- 
lating commercial intercourse were to continue in force two years after 
the conclusion of the then existing European war, but in no case longer 
than ten years. This part of the treaty having expired in 1804, the 
British government proposed to extend the period of its continuance. 
The benefits ascribed to this treaty, had induced a large portion of the 
people to suppose that an offer to renew it would have been accepted. 
But it was declined. Among the objections to the treaty at the time of 
its ratification, were its supposed unfavorable operation upon the inter- 
ests of France, and the absence of any stipulation against the impress- 
ment of our seamen. The latter objection, in particular, was urged 
against its renewal. A provision against impressment was certainly very 
desirable, and it was probably hoped by the administration, that the 
British government would eventually be induced to consent to such pro- 
vision. 

On the 12th of May, 1806, William Pinkney, of Maryland, was asso- 
ciated with Monroe, as envoy plenipotentiary to G-reat Britain. Another 
attempt was made to effect a satisfactory arrangement on the subject of 
impressment. But the British government was still unwilling to relin- 
quish its claim to take from our vessels such seamen as appeared to be 
British subjects. 

On the 31st of December, a treaty was concluded with British com 
missioners. A large proportion of the provisions of this treaty was 
taken from that of 1794. It was also silent on the subject of impress- 
ment. In their letter accompanying the treaty, our ministers said, that, 
although the British government did not feel at liberty to relinquish the 
claim to search our merchant vessels for British seamen, satisfactory 
assurance had been given them, that the practice would be essentially 
if not completely abandoned ; and that by the policy adopted by that 



222 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

government, the United States were made as secure against the exercise 
of the right claimed as if it had been relinquished by treaty. On the 
2d of March, the president received from Mr. Erskine, the British min- 
ister at Washington, a copy of the treaty ; but considering it liable to 
several serious objections, the most important of which seemed to be that 
it contained no stipulation against impressment, he did not even submit 
it to the senate. 

The rejection of the treaty, by which our commercial intercourse with 
Great Britain was left without regulation, caused much dissatisfaction 
with the commercial community. And the refusal of the president to 
submit it to the senate, was condemned by the federal party. It was 
admitted to be objectionable in several particulars ; but the negotiators 
on the part of the United States being political friends of the president, 
and having been also opposed to the treaty of 1794, it was presumed 
that a better treaty could not be obtained ; and it was preferable to no 
treaty at all. Or, had it been laid before the senate, some valuable 
modification of it might perhaps have been effected. 

The course of the president was approved by the republican party. 
As the advice of the senate was not binding on the executive, he ought 
not to yield to it when, in his judgment, a measure was clearly prejudi- 
cial to the public interest. It had been said that he ought to have sub- 
mitted it with propositions for its modification. But if he was convinced 
that the treaty was all that could be obtained from the British govern- 
ment, and that its adoption was impolitic, the withholding of it could 
not be justly considered a violation of duty. 

A renewal of the negotiation, with a view to certain alterations of the 
rejected treaty, was proposed by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney to Mr. Can- 
ning, successor to Mr. Fox, who had died since the conclusion of the treaty. 
But the proposal to negotiate on the basis of that treaty was declined. 
Mr. Monroe conceiving any acceptable arrangement with the British 
government to be hopeless, returned near the close of the year 1807. 

Displeased at the manner in which the treaty had been received, Mr. 
Monroe, in a letter to Mr. Madison, dated February 23, 1808, vindicated 
the course of himself and his associate, and the treaty they had negoti- 
ated. He considered the informal assurance alluded to, and the accom- 
panying explanations, as placing the United States on ground both 
honorable and advantageous. " The British paper," continues Mr. 
Monroe, " states that the king was not prepared to disclaim or derogate 
from a right on which the security of the British navy might essentially 
depend, especially in a conjuncture when he"was engaged in wars which 
enforced the necessity of the most vigilant attention to the preservation 
and supply of his naval force ; that he had directed his commissioners to 



AFFAIR OF THE CHESAPEAKE. >i23 

give to the commissioners of the United States the most positive assu- 
rances that instructions had been given, and should be repeated and 
enforced, to observe the greatest caution in the impressing of British 
seamen, to preserve the citizens of the United States from molestation 
or injury ; and that prompt redress should be afforded on any represen- 
tation of injury sustained by them." He said, " the negotiation on the 
subject of impressment was to be postponed for a limited time and for 
a special object only, and to be renewed as soon as that object was 
accomplished ; and, in the interim, that the practice of impressment was 
to correspond essentially with the views and interests of the United 
States." 

The opinion that the ratification of the treaty would have been the 
better policy, has always been extensively entertained. By leaving the 
question of impressment open for future negotiation, nothing could have 
been lost, while by the rejection of the treaty much was hazarded. It 
was construed by the government of Great Britain into an indisposition 
on the part of the president, to preserve a friendly intercourse with that 
nation. It left the relations between the two countries in a loose and 
irritating condition, and was considered as one of a train of causes that 
resulted in the war of 1812. 

On the 22d of June, 1807, a British squadron of four vessels lay at 
anchor near the capes of Virginia. As the United States frigate Chesa- 
peake passed the squadron, the British frigate Leopard put off and went 
to sea before the Chesapeake. When the latter came up, she was hailed 
by Captain Humphreys of the Leopard, who said he had a dispatch to 
deliver from the British commander-in-chief, meaning Admiral Berkeley 
of the American station. The dispatch proved to be an order to take 
from the Chesapeake certain men alleged to be deserters from a British 
frigate. Commodore Barrow refused permission to search his vessel, 
stating that he had forbidden his officers to enlist British subjects, and 
that he did not believe any were on board* Whereupon the Chesapeake 
received a broadside from the Leopard. Apprehending no danger, and 
being unprepared for action, the Chesapeake immediately struck her flag, 
having three men killed and eighteen wounded. A boat was then sent 
with an officer and four men, from the Leopard to the Chesapeake. Com- 
modore Barrow considering the vessel a prize to the Leopard, the officers 
tendered their swords to Captain Humphreys, but he declined receiving 
them, saying he only wished to execute the order of the admiral ; and 
having taken off four men, left the vessel, which returned to Hampton 
Roads. A formal demand had been made upon our government by Mr. 
Erskine, the British minister at Washington, for the surrender of these 
men. Three of them, as was made to appear after their capture, were 
Americans, who had been in the British service. 



22* THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

This outrage produced great excitement throughout the United States, 
and was universally condemned. It is an established principle, that a 
national vessel shall be considered as part of the territory of the nation, 
and equally inviolable; wherefore the orders of Berkeley could under no 
circumstances have been justifiable. 

On the 2d of July, president Jefferson issued a proclamation requiring 
all British armed vessels then within the harbors or waters of the United 
States, to depart without delay, and interdicting the entrance of such 
vessels. 

A statement of the affair having been made by Mr. Monroe to Mr. 
Canning, the latter declared, that, if the facts should prove to be as 
stated, the act would be disowned by his government. Regarding the 
proclamation as itself an act of retaliation, and as taking the reparation 
into the hands of the American government, he inquired whether this 
government would withdraw the proclamation on the knowledge of his 
majesty's disavowal of the act which had occasioned its publication. 
Mr. Monroe having remarked, in his note to Mr. Canning, that it would 
be " improper to mingle with this more serious cause of complaint, other 
examples of indignity and outrage to which the United States have been 
exposed from the British squadron." Mr. Canning also expressed the 
wish of his government to adjust the case of the Leopard independently 
of the question of impressment with which it had been unnecessarily con- 
nected. And he said it was the intention of that government, if Mr. 
Monroe was not authorized to treat of it separately, to lose no time in 
sending a minister to America fully empowered to bring this unfortunate 
dispute to a conclusion. Mr. Rose was afterward sent to this country 
for that purpose. 

Mr. Rose, on the 26th of January, 1808, stated to Mr. Madison, that 
he was instructed not to enter upon any negotiation for the adjustment 
of the Chesapeake affair, while the proclamation continued in force ; and 
in relation to his not having bdfen commanded to enter into the discus- 
sion of the other causes of complaint, he said, " it was because it had 
been deemed improper to mingle them with the present matter ; an 
opinion originally and distinctly expressed by Mr. Monroe, and assented 
to by Mr. Canning." 

Mr. Madison, in his reply, on the 5th of March, remarked : " It has 
been sufficiently shown that the proclamation, as appears on the face of 
it, was produced by a train of occurrences terminating in the attack on 
the American frigate, and not by this last alone. To a demand, there- 
fore, that the proclamation be revoked, it would be perfectly fair to op- 
pose a demand, that redress be first given for the numerous irregularities 
which preceded the aggression on the American frigate, as well :is for 



SLAVE TRADE ABOLISHED. 225 

this particular aggression." And he argued, that e'ven if the proclama- 
tion had been founded upon this single aggression, the discontinuance of 
the proclamation could not be justly claimed, because, as the seamen in 
(question were still retained, the aggression had not yet been discontinued. 

Mr. Rose, having no authority to enter upon a negotiation on the con- 
ditions required by our government, informed Mr. Madison that his 
mission was terminated. This affair continued unadjusted for more than 
four years after its occurrence ; when Mr. Foster, then minister at 
Washington, in behalf of his government, disavowed the act of Berkeley, 
(who had been recalled soon after the aggression,) and offered to restore 
the seamen and to make suitabL pecuniary provision for the sufferers, 
including the families of the seamen killed and wounded in the action. 
Thus was this difficulty at length amicably settled. Its effects, however, 
upon other questions at issue between the two countries, were not wholly 
removed. 

It was soon after the outrage upon the Chesapeake, that the United 
States became a party in the triangular warfare of commercial restric- 
tions which preceded the war of 1812, and constituted one of the prin- 
cipal causes of that war. A connected history of our difficulties with 
England and France will be given in succeeding chapters. 

In his message at the commencement of the session of 1806 and 1807, 
Mr. Jefferson suggested to congress the interposition of its authority for 
the abolition of the slave trade, which, by the constitution, might be 
terminated at the end of the year 1807. An act was accordingly passed 
at this session, to take effect at the earliest possible day. It prohibited 
the importation, after the 1st of January, 1808, of all persons of color 
with intent to hold or dispose of them as slaves, or to be held to service oi 
labor. Any person concerned in fitting out a vessel for the slave trade, 
was made liable to a fine of S20,000 ; or aiding or abetting therein, for 
the purpose above mentioned, was subjected to a penalty of $20,000 ; 
and the vessel was forfeited. And the taking on board of any vessel, in 
a foreign country, any colored person with intent to sell him within the 
United States, was declared a high misdemeanor, punishable by imprison- 
ment not more than ten, nor less than five years, and by fine not exceed- 
ing $10,000, nor less than $1,000. And any person knowingly pur- 
chasing or selling a colored person imported contrary to this act, was 
liable to a fine of $800. The president was authorized to man and em- 
ploy armed vessels to cruise on the coast of the United States, and to 
direct the commanders of armed vessels to take and bring into port any 
vessel having on board colored persons intended to be sold as slaves ; the 
vessels if found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, 
were liable to forfeiture ; and it authorized the president to man and 

15 



226 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

employ cruisers to seize and bring into port any vessel violating this 
act ; such vessel to be forfeited, and her commander to be liable to fine 
not exceeding $10,000, and imprisoned not more than four nor less than 
two years. Coasting vessels of not less than forty tons burthen were 
permitted to transport slaves, under certain regulations, from state to 
state ; and vessels of less burthen than forty tons might, without being 
subject to the same penalties, transport slaves on rivers and inland bays 
of the sea. 

As usual on questions relating to slavery, there was a warm debate on 
this occasion. To the prohibition of the importation of slaves, there was 
no opposition. But certain details of the measure were the subjects of 
much controversy. It was proposed that the persons unlawfully brought 
into the country should be forfeited to the United States, and sold for 
life, for the public benefit. Another proposition was to make them free. 
And another to apprentice them for a term of years. A majority were 
unwilling that the general government should be subjected to reproach 
by the sale of human beings, and also that they should all be made free, 
as some states had forbidden emancipation : it was therefore finally 
agreed, that the several states should provide for the disposal of them. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE COMMERCIAL WARFARE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND THE 
UNITED STATES. BRITISH ORDERS IN COUNCIL ; FRENCH BERLIN AND 
MILAN DECREES j THE EMBARGO, &C. ; DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 

The war of 1812 may be traced to remote causes — to those of a date 
anterior even to that of the earliest transactions with which we com- 
mence the following sketch. 

In August, 1804, Great Britain declared the French ports, from Os- 
tend to the Seine, in a state of blockade. On the IGth of May, 1806, 
the British secretary of state, Mr. Fox, notified our minister at London, 
Mr. Monroe, that measures had been directed to be taken for the block- 
ade of all the coasts, rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the river 
Brest, both inclusive. This order, however, did not apply to neutral 
vessels laden with goods not the property of his Liajesty's enemies, and 
not contraband of war, provided they had not been laden at an enemy's 
port, nor were bound to an enemy's port. Such vessels were " not pre- 



COMMERCIAL WARFARE. 



22r 



vented from approaching the said coasts, rivers, and ports, except those 
from Ostend to the river Seine, which were to be considered as con- 
tinued in a state of rigorous blockade." 

The next day, May 17, Mr. Monroe communicated to Mr. Madison, 
secretary of state, the note of Mr. Fox ; and in the letter accompanying 
it, Mr. Monroe remarked, in relation to the supposed effects of this 
measure upon the trade of the United States, as follows : " The note is 
couched in terms of restraint, and professes to extend the blockade 
further than was heretofore done ; nevertheless it takes it from many 
ports already blockaded, indeed from all east of Ostend and west of the 
Seine, except in articles contraband of war and enemies' property, which 
are seizable without blockade. And in like form of exception, consider- 
ing every enemy as one power, it admits the trade of neutrals, within 
the same limit, to be free, in the productions of enemies' colonies, in 
every but the direct route between the colony and the parent country. 
* * * It can not be doubted that the note was drawn by the government 
in reference to the question ; and if intended by the cabinet as a founda- 
tion on which Mr. Fox is authorized to form a treaty, and obtained by 
him for the purpose, it must be viewed in a very favorable light. It 
seems clearly to put an end to further seizures, on the principle which 
has been heretofore in contestation." And on the 20th of May, Mr. 
Monroe wrote again : " From what I could collect, I have been 
strengthened in the opinion which I communicated to you in my last, 
that Mr. Fox's note of the 16th was drawn with a view to a principal 
question with the United States, I mean that of the trade with enemies' 
colonies. It embraces, it is true, other objects, particularly the com- 
merce with Russia, and the north generally, whose ports it opens to 
neutral powers, under whose flag British manufactures will find a market 
there. In this particular, especially, the measure promises to be highly 
satisfactory to the commercial interest, and it may be the primary object 
of the government." 

This order was followed, on the part of Napoleon, by the Berlin 
decree ; so called from its having been issued from the city of Berlin, 
the capital of Prussia, into which city he entered on his successful march 
through that kingdom. This decree, dated the 21st of November, 1806, 
declared the British islands in a state of blockade ; and " all commerce 
and correspondence with them was prohibited." " All property whatso- 
ever, belonging to a subject of England, and all merchandise belonging 
to England, or coming from its manufactories, or colonies, was declared 
lawful prize." Napoleon had been successful with his armies, having 
conquered a large portion of Europe ; but his power on the seas had 
been much broken by the superior force of the British navy. Hence the 



228 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

adoption of Lis continental system, as it was called, by which he intend- 
ed to stop all trade between Great Britain and the continent. In the 
face of existing treaties between France and the United States, our min- 
ister at Paris was informed that the decree was applicable to American 
commerce. 

This act of the French government was succeeded by the British 
orders in council, of January 7, 1807, which were superseded by, or 
merged in, other ordei-s issued the 11 th of November following. By 
these orders, all ports and places belonging to France and her allies, 
from which the British flag was excluded, and all the colonies of his 
Britanic majesty's enemies, were declared to be in a state of blockade. 
All trade in the produce or manufactures of these countries or colonies 
was prohibited ; and all vessels trading to or from them, and all mer- 
chandise on board, were made subject to capture and condemnation ; 
with an exception only in favor of the direct trade between neutral 
countries and the colonies of his majesty's enemies. 

This measure, so detrimental to neutral commerce, was followed, on 
the 17th of December, 1807, by another still more sweeping on the part 
of France, called the Milan deoree, by which the British islands were 
declared in a state of blockade, by sea and land ; and every ship, of 
whatever nation, or whatever the nature of its cargo, that should sail 
from the ports of England or her colonies, or of countries occupied by 
English troops, and proceeding to England or to her colonies, or to 
countries occupied by the English, to be good prize. And every ship, of 
whatever nation, which had submitted to search by an English ship, or 
had made a voyage to England, or paid any tax to that government, was 
declared denationalized, and lawful prize. 

These measures were most disastrous to American commerce, and 
wholly unauthorized by the law of nations. To be lawful, a blockade 
must be maintained by a force stationed at an enemy's ports, sufficient to 
make it dangerous for vessels to enter. That so extensive a blockade 
was or could be maintained by an adequate force was not even pretended 
by either party. It is true, the government of Great Britain asserted 
that the limited blockade of 1806 had been duly supported ; but the 
pretension has never been generally conceded. Yet, under these orders 
and decrees, or mere " paper blockades," as they were called, an im- 
mense number of American vessels, with their cargoes, were captured 
by the privateers and cruisers of the two belligerents, and condemned as 
prize. 

On the 22d of December, 1807, and before intelligence of the Milan 
decree had been received, congress, in pursuance of a recommendation of 
the president, passed the famous embargo law, by which all vessels with- 



FRENCH BERLIN AND MILAN DECREES. ^29 

in the jurisdiction of the United States bound to a foreign port, were 
prohibited from leaving their ports ; except foreign vessels either in bal- 
last, or with the goods on board when notified of the act ; and foreign 
armed vessels having public commissions for any foreign power. And 
all coasting vessels were required, before their departure, to give bonds 
to land their cargoes at some port in the United States. The following 
is the messaj^e of the president containing the recommendation of the 
measure. It was dated the 18th of December, 1807 : 

" The communications now made, showing the great and increasing 
dangers with which our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise, are 
threatened on the high seas and elsewhere, from the belligerent powers 
of Europe, and it being of the greatest importance to keep in safety 
these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend the subject 
to the consideration of congress, who will doubtless perceive all the ad- 
vantages which may be expected from an inhibition of the departure of 
our vessels from the pdrts of the United States. 

" Their wisdom will also see the necessity of making every precaution 
for whatever events may grow out of the present crisis." 

Accompanying this message, were four documents, the " communica- 
tions" to whicb the message referred. One of these documents was an 
extract of a letter from the French grand judge, minister of justice, to 
the imperial attorney-general for the council of prizes, dated September 
18, 1807, containing Napoleon's construction of the Berlin decree; 
which was, that French " vessels of war might seize on board neutral 
vessels either English property, or even all merchandise proceeding from 
the English manufactories or territory." Another document, dated Oc- 
tober 16, 1807, and taken from a London newspaper, purported to be a 
proclamation by the king of Great Britain, for recalling and prohibiting 
British seamen from service on board of ships of war belonging to any 
foreign state at enmity with that nation ; declaring that all his majesty's 
subjects who should voluntarily continue in, or thereafter enter, such 
service, would be guilty of high treason. Only these two papers were 
published as having accompanied the message. 

The other two papers were, a letter from Mr. Armstrong, our minis- 
ter at Paris, dated September 24, 1807, to the minister of foreign rela- 
tions, asking whether the Berlin decree was " intended, in any degree, 
to infract the obligations of the treaty subsisting between the United 
States and the French empire," and Champagny's answer of the 7th of 
October, confirming Napoleon's construction of that decree ; to which he 
added, that the decree of blockade had been issued eleven months ; that 
the principal powers of Europe, so far from protesting against its pro- 
visions, had adopted them. They had perceived that, to render it efiiec- 



230 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tual, it must be complete ; and it had " seemed easy to reconcile the 
measure with the observance of treaties, especially at a time wlien the 
infractions, by England, of the rights of all maritime powers, render their 
interests common, and tend to unite them in support of the same cause.'' 

These two letters, though communicated with the message to congress^ 
were, it is said, returned at the president's request, for the reason, as ho 
alleged, that it was improper to publish them. What rendered their 
publication improper, is left to conjecture. They were, however, some 
months afterward, with a mass of other documents, laid before congress, 
without any intimation for what purpose. The political opponents of 
the president discovered in none of these documents any new facts 
" showing great and increasing dangers" calling for special legislation, 
much less an embargo. The British proclamation was presumed to have 
been intended merely to secure her own seamen. They therefore looked 
for the motive to the measure in a desire to appease France. Having at 
that time few vessels afloat, she would receive little injury from the em- 
bargo, while Great Britain, having command of the ocean, would be the 
principal sufferer. The letter of Champagny clearly showed the inten- 
tion of forcing the United States into an acquiescence, if not an active 
cooperation, in the general war upon British commerce ; and but a few 
weeks elapsed before the capture and condemnation of goods commenced, 
on the ground that they were the productions of Great Britain. 

The federalists seem to have suspected, that the object of the partial 
suppression of Champagny's letter, was to prevent the idea that the em- 
bargo was intended to aid Bonaparte in crippling the commerce of Great 
Britain ; Spain and Holland having already been brought, according to 
that letter, " to unite" with him " in support of the same cause." The 
suspicion of the president's subserviency to France, was subsequently 
strengthened by letters from our ministers in France and England, pub-' 
lished in a pamphlet, entitled, " Further Suppressed Documents," which 
made its appearance about that time. One of these letters was from 
Mr. Armstrong to Mr. Madison, dated February 22, 1808. The follow- 
ing is an extract : 

" I have come to the knowledge of two facts which I think sufficiently 
show the decided character of the emperor's policy with regard to us. 
These are, first, that in a council of administration held a few days past, 
when it was proposed to modify the decrees of November, 1806, and 
December 1807. (though the proposition was supported by the whole 
weight of the council,) he became highly indignant, and declared that 
these decrees should suffer no change, and that the Americans should be 
compelled to take the positive character of either allies or enemies ; 2d, 
that on the 27th of January last, twelve days after Mr. Champagny's 



SUPPRESSED DOCUMENTS. 231 

written assurances that these decrees should work no change in the pro- 
perty sequestered, until our discussions with England were brought to a 
close, and seven days before he reported to me verbally these very as- 
surances, the emperor had, by a special decision, confiscated two of our 
ships and their cargoes, (the Julius Henry and the Juniata,) for want 
merely of a document not required by any law or usage of the com- 
merce in which they had been engaged. This act was taken, as I am in- 
formed, on a general report of sequestered cases amounting to one hun- 
dred and sixtyj and which, at present prices, will yield upwards of one 
hundred millions of francs, a sum whose magnitude alone renders hope- 
less all attempts at saving it. Danes, Portuguese, and Americans, will 
be the principal sufferers. If I am right in supposing that the emperor 
has definitively taken his ground, I can not be wrong in concluding that 
you will immediately take yours.'''' 

Another letter, said to have been suppressed, was from Mr. Pinkney, 
who, after he had received a copy of the president's message recommend- 
ing the embargo, and of the act passed in pursuance of it, wrote to Mr. 
Madison from London, January 26, 1808, that he had given to the 
British government the explanations of this measure, as Mr. Madison 
had suggested, and that " Mr. Canning had received the explanations 
with great apparent satisfaction, and had expressed his most friendly 
disposition towards our country." And on his having made complaint 
to Mr. Canning, that, as an effect of the orders in council, " American 
vessels coming into British ports under warning, could not obtain any 
document to enable them to return to the United States, without hazard 
in the event of its being found imprudent, either to deposit their cargoes, 
or to resume their original voyages ; Mr. Canning took a note of what 
he had said, and assured him that whatever was necessary to give the 
facility in question, would be done without delay ; adding, that it was 
their sincere wish to show, in every thing connected with the orders in 
council, which only necessity had compelled them to adopt, their anxiety 
to accommodate them, as far as was consistent with their object, to the 
feelings and interest of the American government and people." 

The suppression of these documents was attributed to the fear that 
the people, seeing the contrast between the two documents, would disap- 
prove the course of the government toward the two countries. Certain 
federalists, since the death of Mr. Jefferson and the publication of his 
writings, have referred to a letter from him to Robert L. Livingston, 
dated October 15, 1808, for a farther confirmation of the opinion, that 
the embargo was designed to benefit France and injure Great Britain. 
He says : " The explanation of his principles, given you by the French 
emperor, in conversation, is correct, as far as it goes. Ho does not wish 



232 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

US to go to war with England, knowing we have no ships to carry ou 
that war. To submit to pay England the tribute on our commerce 
which she demands, by her orders in council, would be to aid her in the 
war against him, and would give him just ground to declare war with us. 
He concludes, therefore, as every rational man must, that the embargo, 
the only remaining alternative, was a wise measure." He says in the 
same letter : " Had the emperor said that he condemned our vessels 
going voluntarily into his ports in breach of his municipal laws, we might 
have admitted it as rigorously legal, though net friendly. But his con- 
demnation of vessels taken on the high seas by his privateers, and car- 
ried involuntarily into his ports, is justifiable by no law, is piracy, and 
this is the wrong we complain of against him." This conduct of France 
being as bad as that of Great Britain possibly could be, the federalists 
thought her equally deserving of retaliatory legislation. 

The effect of the embargo was more or less severe upon the three 
countries. Through the British newspapers and other channels of in- 
formation, the loss of the American market to English manufacturers, 
was represented as being most sensibly felt ; and many laborers were 
consequently thrown out of employment. It would seem, however, that 
the extreme severity of the measure was not permanent in that country. 
Cotton was imported from Brazil, Egypt, and the East Indies, and grain 
from the Baltic, though at a great disadvantage. The revolt in Spain, 
caused by the attempt of Bonaparte to put one of his own family upon 
the throne of that kingdom, opened for the British a market in that 
country and in her South American colonies. Mr. Armstrong, in a let- 
ter of the 30th of August, 1808, also published in the " Suppressed 
Documents," says : " We have somewhat overrated the means of coercion 
of the two great belligerents to a course of justice. * * * Here it 
(the embargo) is not felt, and in England, (in the midst of the more in- 
teresting scenes of the day,) it is forgotten." 

In the United States, commerce was almost annihilated; and mur- 
murs of dissatisfaction prevailed throughout the counti*y. In the New 
England states especially, where capital was invested chiefly in commer- 
cial enterprise, the loudest complaints were made during the whole 
period of its continuance. Not being permitted to export, agricultural 
labor was poorly rewarded ; and manufactures were obtained, if obtained 
at all, at very high prices. Such was the height to which the disaffec- 
tion at length arose in the eastern states, as to cause apprehensions that, 
if the embargo should be persisted in, it would meet with violent resist- 
ance ; and those states would withdraw from the union. 

To mitigate the rigor of this restrictive policy, congress, on the 1st of 
March 1809, passed an act, since called the tion-iiUercou- ie law, by 



DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSION, 233 

■which the embargo law was repealed, and all intercourse with Great 
Britain and France prohibited. But the act provided, that, if either 
nation should so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to 
violate the neutral commerce of the United States — which fact the presi- 
dent should declare by proclamation — the trade suspended by this act 
and the embargo should be renewed with that nation. 

Mr. Jefferson's term of office having expired, Mr. Madison was inau- 
gurated as president on the 4th of March, 1809. He appointed Robert 
Smith, of Maryland, secretary of state ; William Eustis, of Massachu- 
setts, secretary of war; Paul Hamilton, of South Carolina, secretary of 
the navy ; Albert Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, was continued secretary of 
the treasury ; and Cesar A. Rodney, of Delaware, was continued attorney- 
general. 

In April, Mr. Erskine, the British minister at Washington, repre- 
sented that he was authorized by his government to say, that, if the 
United States would renew intercourse with Great Britain, the orders in 
council, so far as they affected the United States, would be repealed. 
Accordingly, the president issued a proclamation on the 19th of April, 
announcing that the commerce between the two countries would be 
renewed the 10th of June, on which day the British orders were to be 
withdrawn. The last congress having, in consequence of the critical 
state of public affairs, passed an act convening the new congress on the 
22d of May, the latter met on the day appointed. In the message of 
the president, communicated on the 23d, the first subject to which ha 
called their attention was, the " revision of our commercial laws, proper 
to adapt them to the arrangement which has taken place with Great 
Britain." The necessary laws were accordingly passed. 

Intelligence, however, was soon after received, that the British gov- 
ernment had disavowed the act of their minister as unauthorized ; who ' 
admitted that he had exceeded the letter of his instructions : but he had 
been induced to do so from a conviction that he should be acting in con- 
formity with his majesty's wishes. The president, therefore, on the 3d 
of August, issued another proclamation, declaring that the orders in 
council had not been withdrawn, and that, consequently, the acts which 
had been suspended were to be considered as in force. For having thus 
violated the instructions of his government, Mr. Erskine was recalled. 

Mr. Francis James Jackson, successor to Mr. Erskine, arrived at 
Washington the ensuing autumn ; and a correspondence with the secre- 
tary of state was soon commenced. This correspondence related to the 
question whether our government in negotiating with Mr. Erskine, had 
knowledge of the extent of his instructions — whether it did not know 
that he was not invested with full power to adjust the differences be- 



234 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tween the two nations. Mr. Erskine had been instructed to submit 
three conditions as the groundwork of an arrangement between them ; 
and if these conditions should be officially recognized by the American 
government, " his majesty would lose no time in sending a minister fully 
empowered to consign them to a formal and regular treaty ;" and it ap- 
peared from Mr. Erskine's correspondence that the three conditions had 
been submitted, although the instructions in extenso had not been com- 
municated. They had, however, been read at length by Mr. Canning to 
Mr. Pinkney in London, and they had been made the basis of the offi- 
cial correspondence between Mr. Erskine and the secretary of state ; from 
which, the British minister contended, our government must or might 
have known the nature and extent of the instructions. And his persist- 
ence in maintaining this point, after an explicit declaration by the secre- 
tary, that our government had not such knowledge, and that with such 
knowledge the arrangement would not have been made, was regarded as 
a reflection upon the government ; and Mr. Jackson was informed that 
no farther communication would be received from him. He immediately 
(November, 1809,) retired to New York, where he resided until, in pur- 
suance of the request of the president, he was recalled. No successor to 
Mr. Jackson was appointed until early in the year 1811. 

In retaliation of the non-intercourse act, the Rambouillct decree was 
issued by Napoleon on the 23d of March, 1810. This decree, more 
sweeping in its operation on American property than any that had pre- 
ceded it, extended back to the 20th of May, 1809. Every American 
vessel and cargo, wliich had since that time entered, or should thereafter 
enter into any ports of France or her colonies or of any country occupied 
by the French, was liable to be seized and sold. The aggressions of France 
were thus noticed by Mr. Monroe in an official dispatch : " The influ- 
ence of France has been exerted to the injury of the United States, in 
all the countries to which her power has extended. In Spain, Hol- 
land, and Naples, it has been most sensibly felt. In each of these 
countries the vessels and cargoes of American merchants have been seized 
and confiscated, under various decrees, founded in difi"erent pretexts, none 
of which had even the semblance of right to support them." 

The non-intercourse law having expired, congress, on the 1st of May, 
1810, passed a new act, of a similar nature, which provided that, if 
either Great Britain or France should, before the 3d day of March, 1811, 
so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to violate our 
neutral commerce, and if the other nation should not, within three 
months thereafter, do the same, then the act interdicting commercial 
intercousc, should be revived against the nation refusing to revoke. 

On the 5th of August, 1810, the French minister of foreign afiairs, 



DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 235 

the duke of Cadore, informed our minister at Paris, Gen. Armstrong, 
that " the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and would cease to 
have effect after the 1st of November following ;" stating, as the reason 
for the revocation, that " the congress of the United States had retraced 
its steps, and had engaged to oppose the belligerent (Great Britain) 
which refused to acknowledge the rights of neutrals." He stated also, 
as conditions of the repeal of the decrees, " that the*English shall revoke 
their orders in council, and renounce the new principles of blockade 
which they have wished to establish ; or that the United States shall 
cause their rights to be respected by the English." 

Regarding this note of the French minister as sufl&cient evidence of 
the repeal of the decrees, the president, on the 2d of November, issued 
a proclamation declaring the restrictions imposed by the act of the 1st 
of May to be removed as respected France and her dependencies. And 
on the 2d of March, 1811, congress passed an act, declaring these restric- 
tions to be in force against Great Britain. It had been expected that 
the British government would revoke its orders in case the decrees 
should be repealed. This, however, it refused to do. This refusal was 
the occasion of a long controversy between the two governments, com- 
menced at London and continued and concluded at Washington, The 
prominent features of the controversy, as presented by the correspond- 
ence between lord Wellesley and Mr. Pinkney, will appear from the 
following paragraphs : 

The British government did not consider the notification of the repeal 
of the French decrees to be such as to justify the repealing of the orders 
in council. The repeal of the decrees was not absolute, but conditional 
— to take effect the 1st of November, provided Great Britain, before 
that time, should revoke her orders, and renounce the principles of 
blockade which France alleged to be new. The American government, 
it was intimated, had united with France in requiz-ing of Great Britain 
a renunciation of these new principles. To what principles allusion is 
here made, appears from the Berlin decree, which states that Great Bri- 
tain " extends the right of blockade to commercial unfortified towns, and 
to ports, harbors, and mouths of rivers, which, according to the principles 
and practice of all civilized nations, is only applicable to /or^z/Za^ places." 
Great Britain, on the contrary, asserted that the principles of blockade con- 
demned by France were ancient, and established by the laws of maritime 
war acknowledged by all civilized nations. Notwithstanding, if France 
had conditioned the repeal of her decrees on the revocation of the British 
orders alone, that condition would have been fulfilled. 

The American government disclaimed having demanded the renuncia- 
tion of the principles of blockade condemned by France. It had simply 



236 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

urged, that ports not actually blockaded by a present, adequate, stationary 
force, should not be shut against neutral trade in articles not contraband 
of war. The blockade of 1806 had not been thus maintained; and its 
annulment was therefore indispensable to the renewal of intercourse. It 
was also insisted by the American miniater, that the French decrees were 
repealed, and no longer in operation ; and that, as the foundation of the 
orders in council was gone, they ought to be repealed. 

This subject was afterwards discussed at Washington by Mr. Foster 
and Monroe. The correspondence was opened by Mr. Foster on the 3d 
of July, 1811, of whose letter the following is an abstract : 

The decree of Berlin was an act of war, by which France prohibited 
all nations from trade or intercourse with Great Britain, under peril of 
confiscation of their ships and merchandise, although she had not the 
means of imposing an actual blockade. The professed object of the 
decree was the destruction of all British commerce, through means en- 
tirely unsanctioned by the law of nations. Great Britain would have 
been justified in retaliating upon the enemy by a similar interdiction 
of all commerce with France, and with such other countries as might 
cooperate with her in her system of commercial hostility against Great 
Britain. The latter, however, instead of prohibiting the trade of 
neutrals with France, had prohibited such trade only as should not be 
carried on through Great Britain. This injury to neutral commerce had 
been foreseen and regretted ; but it arose from the aggression of France, 
which had compelled Great Britain to retaliate in her own defense. The 
object of the orders in council was merely to counteract an attempt to 
crush British trade. Having rested the justification of her orders upon 
the existence of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, she had always declared 
her readiness to repeal those orders, whenever France should have re- 
pealed her decrees, and restored neutral commerce to the condition in 
which it stood before the promulgation of those decrees. France had as- 
serted that the decree of Berlin was a measure of just retaliation for the 
previous aggression of Great Britain by her system of blockade, which 
France declared to be a violation of the law of nations, because it had 
been applied to unfortified towns and commercial ports, to harbors, and 
mouths of rivers ; whereas the rights of blockade, she maintained, were 
limited to fortresses really invested by a sufficient force. She had also 
asserted that Great Britain had declared places in a state of blockade 
which the whole British force would be insufficient to blockade. Great 
Britain denied that the law of nations sanctioned the rule laid down by 
France, that no places but fortresses could be lawfully blockaded by sea. 

It was admitted by Great Britain, that no blockade was justifiable or 
valid unless supported by an adequate force destined to maintain it, and 



DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 237 

to expose to hazard all vessels attempting to evade its operation. The 
blockade of May, 1806, had not been notified by Mr. Fox, until he had 
satisfied himself that the board of admiralty had the means and would 
employ them, of watching the whole coast from Brest to the Elbe, and 
of enforcing the blockade. And it had been supported, both in inten- 
tion and fact, until the time when the orders in council were issued. 
France had declared a blockade of all the ports and coasts of Great 
Britain and her dependencies, without assigning, or being able to assign 
any force to support it. America appeared to concur with France in. 
asserting that Great Britain had been the original aggressor on neutral 
rights, and that the aggression consisted in the blockade of 1806; the 
objection to which rested on the supposition that it had not been duly 
maintained. But it appeared from the facts of the case, that neither 
under the objections urged by France, nor under those stated by the 
American government, could that blockade be deemed contrary to the 
law of nations. The orders in council were therefore founded on a just 
principle of defensive retaliation against the violation of the law of 
nations by France in the Berlin decree ; and the blockade of May, 1 806, 
was now included in the more extensive operation of the orders in 
council. The orders in council would not be continued after the 
effectual repeal of the decrees ; nor would the blockade of 1806 con- 
tinue after the repeal of the orders in council, unless sustained by a 
sufficient naval force. 

The British minister insisted that the decrees had never been repealed 
The French minister's note to Mr. Armstrong, dated the 5th of August, 
1810, was called a " deceitful declaration." Its language was ambigu- 
ous. It had, however, been recently explained by the emperor himself, 
in a speech to certain deputies from Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck, in 
which he declared that " the Berlin and Milan decrees should be the 
public code of France, as long as England maintained her orders in 
council of 1806 and 1807." Certain official documents were also re- 
ferred to as evidence that the decrees were yet in force. It had been 
said that the only two American ships taken under the Berlin and Milan 
decrees since the 1st of November, had been restored. They might havt 
been restored for somfe other reason than that assigned ; for, having been 
captured in plain contravention of the supposed revocation, why were 
they not restored immediately, instead of being detained in French ports, 
and subjected to so much difficulty in obtaining a release ? The fears of 
the French navy, however, had prevented many cases of the kind on the 
ocean under the decrees of Berlin and Milan ; but the most obnoxious 
and destructive parts of those decrees were exercised with full violence, 
not only in the ports of France, but in those of all other countries tc 
which France thought she could commit injustice with impunity. 



238 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

To the letters of Mr. Foster, Mr. Monroe replied on the 23d of July. 

The United States, he said, were little disposed to enter into the ques- 
tion concerning the priority of aggression by the two belligerents, as the 
aggression of neither could be justified by the prior aggression of the 
other. But as this had been made a plea in support of the orders in 
council, it might be remarked, that the blockade had not been maintained 
with the requisite strictness until it was comprised in and superseded by 
the orders of November of the following year, nor even until the French 
decree of the same year. But the orders in council went even beyond 
the plea, in extending their operation against the trade of the United 
States with nations which had not adopted the French decrees. The 
modification of the orders permitting neutrals to trade with the continent 
through Great Britain, was not viewed in a favorable light. The politi- 
cal pretension set up by it was incompatible with the sovereignty and in- 
dependence of other states ; and as a commercial regulation, it was de- 
structive to neutral commerce. As an enemy, Great Britain could not 
trade with France ; nor did France permit a neutral to come into her 
ports from Great Britain. Forcing our trade through Great Britain, 
had therefore the efiect of depriving us of the market of her enemy for 
our productions, and of compelling their sale in Great Britain, where, 
by a surcharge of the market, their value was nearly destroyed. 

The United States had observed the impartiality due to both parties 
as belligerents. They had borne, with equal indulgence, injuries from 
both. The ofiers presented to them by the late acts of our government, 
were made equally to both. The embargo and non-intercourse acts were 
peaceful measures. So also was the non-importation act ; and the dis- 
tinction which it now made between the belligerents, resulted from the 
compliance of one with the ofi"er made to both, and which was still open 
to the compliance of the other. It had been stated that Great Britain 
would proceed pari passu with France in the revocation of her edicts. 
Our government maintained that France had revoked her decrees. Of 
this, the announcement of Champagny, the duke of Cadorc, to Mr. Arm- 
strong, was sufficient evidence. Two American vessels had been detained 
in French ports ; but they had not been condemned. Both these vessels 
proceeded from a British port, and had on board some articles Avhich 
were prohibited by the laws of France, or were such as could be admit- 
ted by the government alone. This appeared to be the only cause of the 
detention. If the detention of the vessels was owing to their passing 
from a British to a French port, or to the nature of their cargoes, it 
afi"orded no cause of complaint to Great Britain. The right of complaint 
oelonged to the United States, whose neutral rights had been violated. 

In the speech of the emperor to the deputies of the free cities of Ham- 



DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 239 

burg, Bremen, and Lubeck, there was nothing to disprove the rej eal of 
the decrees. He declared that the blockade of the British islands should 
cease when the British blockades should cease ; and that the French 
blockade should cease in favor of ' those nations in whose favor Great 
Britain should revoke hers, or who should support their rights against 
her pretension, as France admitted the United States would do by en- 
forcing the non-importation act. Every communication received from 
the French government was in accordance with the actual repeal of the 
Berlin and Milan decrees, in relation to the neutral commerce of the 
United States. But the best evidence of their ceasing to operate, was 
the want of evidence that they did operate. 

It was unreasonable for Great Britain to require that the commerce 
of the continent should be restored to the state in which it stood prior 
to the date of the Berlin and Milan decrees, before she would revoke her 
orders in council. The laws of war governed the relations of Great 
Britain and France. The vessels of either taken by the other, were lia- 
ble to confiscation. But even if no war existed, the United States could 
not open the continent to the commerce of Great Britain. They could 
not maintain such a claim in their own favor, though neutral ; and how 
could Great Britain demand that they should obtain the favor for her, 
being an enemy ? Every nation not restrained by treaty, has a right to 
regulate its trade with other nations as it may deem most conducive to 
its own interests. 

It will be recollected that Mr. Monroe, in 1806, then minister at Lon- 
don, represented the blockade against France as favorable to our com- 
mercial interests. Mr. Foster, in one of his letters to Mr. Monroe, ex- 
pressed his surprise that our government should now require the revoca- 
tion of this order of blockade as a condition of the renewal of intercourse , 
the motive to which is insinuated in the following extract : "It was clearly 
proved that the blockade of May, 1806, was maintained by an adequate 
naval force, and therefore was a blockade founded on just and legitimate 
principles ; and I have not heard that it was considered in a contrary 
light when notified as such to you by secretary Fox, nor until it suited 
the views of France to endeavor to have it considered otherivise. Why 
America took up the view the French government chose to give of it, 
and could see in it grounds for the French decrees, was always matter 
of astonishment in England." 

To which Mr. Monroe replied : " A controversy had taken place be- 
tween our governments on a difi"erent topic, which was still depending. 
The British government had interfered with the trade between France 
and her allies in the produce of their colonies. The just claim of the 
United States was then a subject of negotiation ; and your government, 



240 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

professing its willingness to make a satisfactory arrangement of it, issued 
the order which allowed the trade without making any concession as to 
the principle, reserving that for adjustment by treaty. It was in this 
light that I viewed, and in this sense that I represented that order to 
my government; and in no other did I make any comment on it," 

Much importance seems to have been given to the question of the re- 
vocation of the French decrees. In addition to the facts already men- 
tioned as evidence that they were still in force, another was, that Ameri- 
can vessels engaged in the trade with France, were required to have 
licenses from the French consuls in the United States. If the decrees 
had been to any extent repealed, so far, at least, no licenses should be 
necessary ; a license being given to allow what, but for that license, 
would be prohibited. Besides, no instrument by which the repeal had 
been effected, had yet appeared. If there were fair dealing in the trans- 
• action, no reason could be given for not producing it. It ought to b( 
produced to show to what extent the decrees had been really repealed. 

To this it was replied, that seizures might have been made upon other 
grounds than those which had been mentioned. Great Britain claimed 
the right to seize for other causes, and all nations admit it in cases of 
contraband of war. If, by the law of nations, one belligerent has a right 
to seize neutral property, in any case, the other belligerent has the 
same right. Another cause might be found in the well known prac- 
tice in England of furnishing the officers of her vessels with counterfeit 
papers, purporting to be American, under which British vessels had ac- 
quired the benefits of neutrality. It had impaired the credit due to 
American documents, and ceased to afford adequate protection to our 
vessels. Against this practice our minister at London had made a 
formal representation, with an offer of the necessary information to de- 
tect and suppress it ; but the communication was entirely disregarded. 

The granting of licenses by the French government in certain in- 
stances, proved only that the trade with France ia other instances was 
under restraint. The object of the Berlin and Milan decrees was not 
to prohibit the trade between the United States and France, but the 
trade of the United States with Great Britain, which was a violation of 
our neutral rights, and to prohibit the trade of Great Britain with the 
continent, with which the United States had nothing to do. If the ob- 
ject of these decrees had been to prohibit trade between the United States 
and France, Great Britain would have had no cause of complaint. And 
if the idea of retaliation on the part of Great Britain by her measures 
had been applicable, it would have been by prohibiting our trade with 
herself. To prohibit it with France, would not have been retaliation 
(like for like) but a cooperation. 



PIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS, 241 

Could that be really a revocation which depended upon certain condi- 
tions? It will be recollected, that it was to take effect the 1st of No- 
vember, 1810, " it being understood^ that, in consequence of this declara- 
tion, the English shall revoke their orders in council, and renounce the 
new principles of blockade which they have attempted to establish ; or 
that the United States shall cause their rights to be respected by the 
English;" that is to say, they must cause Great Britain to relinquish 
her blockades. The French government could scarcely have believed 
that these conditions would have been fulfilled. Doubts of a bcy)ia fide 
repeal were strengthened by the terms upon which the trade was opened. 
Our vessels were required to obtain licenses from French consuls in the 
United States, with which they might proceed to French ports with 
American produce ; for which, however, they must take in exchange 
silks, wines, and other articles of French manufacture — two-thirds of the 
value of the cargo to consist of silks. 

These restrictions upon our trade were the subject of bitter complaint 
and strong remonstrance by our government. Jonathan Russell, our 
charge des affaires, at Paris, (in the place of Mr. Armstrong, return- 
ed,) in a letter to the secretary of state, said: " The tendency of this re- 
striction, added to the dangers of a vigilant blockade, and to the exac- 
tions of an excessive tariff, was to annihilate all commercial intercourse 
between the two countries." In thesame light was the subject viewed 
by Mr. Monroe, secretary of state. In a letter of the 26th of July, 
1811, to Mr. Barlow, then minister at Paris, he says: " The president 
expects that the commerce of the United States will be placed, in the 
ports of France, on such a footing as to afford to it a fair market. An 
arrangement to this effect was looked for immediately after the revoca- 
tion of the decrees ; but it appears from the documents in this depart- 
ment, that that was not the case : on the contrary, that our commerce 
has been subjected to the greatest discouragement, or rather to the most 
oppressive restraints; that the vessels which carried coffee, sugar, &c., 
&c., though sailing directly from the United States to a French port, 
were held in a state of sequestration, on the principle that the trade was 
prohibited, and that the importation of those articles was not only un- 
lawful but criminal ; that even those vessels which carried the unques- 
tionable productions of the United States were exposed to great and ex- 
pensive delays, to tedious investigations in unusual forms, and to exorbi- 
tant duties. In short, that the ordinary usages of commerce between 
friendly nations were abandoned." 

Our merchants, Mr. Monroe said, had considered themselves invited 
to the ports of France by the repeal of the decrees; and the vexations 
and losses to which they had been unexpectedly subjected, were not. onlj 

16 



242 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

unjust to them, but disrespectful to our government. If the ports of 
France and her allies were not opened to our commerce, on fair condi- 
tions, the revocation of the British orders would be of no avail. He 
complained also of the injustice of compelling our merchants to bring in 
return for their cargoes an equal amount in the produce or manufactures 
of that country, while French merchants enjoyed the liberty of selling 
their cargoes here for cash, and taking in return what they pleased. The 
system of carrying on the trade by licenses granted by French agents, 
ought to be annulled, and Mr. Barlow was instructed to tell the French 
government that the United States could not submit to it ; and that if 
the consuls did not discontinue it, the president might find it necessary 
to revoke their exequaturs. 

Mr. Monroe also reprehended the " unjustifiable aggression on the 
rights of the United States " by the French decrees, especially the Ram- 
bouillet decree, of March, 1810, which "made a sweep of all American 
property within the reach of the French power. * * * j^ Spain, 
Holland, and Naples, it has been most sensibly felt. In each of those 
countries, the vessels and cargoes of American merchants were seized 
and confiscated under various decrees founded in different pretexts, none 
of which had even the semblance of right to support them." And he 
mentions as the most atrocious of all the reprehensible acts of that gov- 
ernment and its subjects, the burning of the vessels of our citizens at sea. 

The annoyances to our commerce mentioned in the first of these ex- 
tracts from Mr. Monroe's letter, were by many deemed inconsistent with 
a sincere revocation of the decrees ; and, in connection with the fact that 
the repeal was never formally announced, were regarded by many as con- 
clusive evidence that it was a mere pretense. In view of the outrages 
recited in the latter of these extracts, and which had been perpetrated 
long prior to the pretended repeal of the decrees, and for which no 
promise of compensation had been made, the inquiry naturally arises, 
whether the proclamation of president Madison, immediately suspending 
the non-intercourse law in regard to France, was not premature. It 
was the more mild and conciliatory policy pursued toward that country 
than toward Great Britain, and the greater apparent readiness to com- 
ply with her wishes, that furnished the principal ground of opposition to 
the administration during this long controversy. Insisting on the re- 
linquishment of the British blockade, which was regarded as " highly 
satisfactory" before such relinquishment was made by Bonaparte a con- 
dition of the revocation of his decrees, and demanding the unconditional 
removal of this blockade as an obligation imposed by the conditional and 
doubtful repeal of those decrees, gave occasion for nine-lenths of the op- 
position. 



smith's expose. 243 

A review of the entire history of this commercial warfare, justifies the 
conclusion, that neither Great Britain nor France avowed her real de- 
signs ; that the British orders in council, instead of being intended as 
measures of retaliation against her enemy, their real object was to force 
a trade to France and the continent, generally through British ports, 
where a transit duty was levied for the British treasury. They were in 
fact spoken of by a leading member of parliament as " a system of self- 
defense, to prevent the commerce of America from coming into competi- 
tion with the commerce of England." Trade with all the world, even 
with her enemies, seems to have been her object ; and she wished to make 
our government the instrument of forcing France to receive her manu- 
factures. Such an opinion is at least plausible. Niles said with some 
truth :" If Bonaparte were to grant a license for the purpose, certain 
London merchants could obtain leave to supply him even with arms and 
ammunitioji — so zealous are they for a trade with an enemy ! The 
least relaxation of his ' continental system ' is hailed with exultation and 
joy. They gladly send him what he pleases to admit, and accept in re- 
turn almost anything he pleases to give them. This has been the prac- 
tice for years ; and yet some have said the orders in council were ' re- 
taliatory' on the French decrees." 

Equally manifest is it, from the reprehensible policy of France, in 
connection with the facts disclosed in the -foregoing letters and docu- 
ments, and the indispensable conditions of the repeal of her decrees, viz., 
that we should compel Great Britain to repeal her orders in council, 
that the object of France was to force us into a quarrel with her enemy, 
or, what is tantamount, into an alliance with herself. 

In 1811, Robert Smith, secretary of state, in consequence of a dis- 
agreement between himself and the president on the subject of the repeal 
of the French decrees, and the consequent measures of the government, 
resigned his office, and was succeeded by Mr. Monroe. In an address 
to the public, giving the reasons for his resignation, are statements which 
may aid in forming an opinion as to the expediency of the policy of the 
administration. Mr. Smith, as will be seen, considered the decrees of 
France as not actually repealed, and, of course, the proclamation of the 
president, removing the non-intercourse with France, and the law of 
March 2, 1811, reenacting it against Great Britain, as unwarranted by 
facts. 

Mr. Smith imputed to the president improper motives in procuring 
the passage of the non-intercourse act. Congress had considered his 
proclamation and the message recommending the enforcement of the act 
of May, 1810, as satisfactory evidence of the repeal of the French 
decrees. And Mr. S. notes it as a significant fact that the act wa 



244 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

passed after the arrival of the new French minister. He also notices 
the letters from the state department, of June and July, 1810, contain- 
ing the protestation which was communicated to the French government 
that " a satisfactory provision for restoring the property lately surprised 
and seized by the order, or at the instance of the French government, 
must be combined with a repeal of the French edicts, with a view to non- 
intercourse with Great Britain ;" yet, before the passage of the act, the 
French minister, Serrurier, had officially communicated to our govern- 
ment the fixed determination of the government of France 7Wt to restart 
the property that had been so seized. " Moreover," adds Mr. Smith 
" from the information which had been received by Mr. Madison, prior 
to the date of the non-intercourse law, it was, ai the time of passing it, 
clear to my mind, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had not been 
revoked, as had been declared by the proclamation." 

Then follows a copy of the draft of a letter prepared (June, 1810) by 
Mr. S., to be sent to General Armstrong, after a letter had been received 
of the duke of Cadore, justifying the seizure of American property in the 
ports of France and her allies. This letter expressed the surprise of the 
president at the " disposition to represent the United States as the ori- 
ginal aggressor." It considered the seizure of American property as 
" an act of violence scarcely less than an act of war," for which the 
duke's letter " had not furnished even a plausible palliation or a reason- 
able apology." To construe our resistance to the unlawful restrictions 
upon our commerce by France into " a cause of warlike reprisal," he 
called " a species of dictation." The French decrees, the letter said, 
" had assumed a prescriptive power over the policy of the United States, 
as reprehensible as the attempt of the British government to levy con- 
tributions on our trade was obnoxious. * * * Had France inter- 
dicted to our vessels all the ports within the sphere of her influence, and 
had she given a warning of equal duration with that given by our law. 
there would have been no cause of complaint on the part of the United 
States. The French government would not then have had the oppor- 
tunity of exercising its power in a manner as contrary to the forms as 
to the spirit of justice, over the property of the citizens of the United 
States." 

The letter says farther : " Let him withdraw or modify his decrees ; 
let him restore the property of our citizens so unjustly seized, and a law 
of the United States exists which authorizes the president to promote the 
best possible understanding with France, and to impose a system of ex 
elusion against the ships and merchandise of Great Britain in the event 
of her failing to conform to the same just terms of conciliation." 

Mr. Smith expressed to Mr. M.iili-i..i his apprehensions that the 



SMITH S EXPOSE. 245 

emperor would not fulfill our just expectations. But Mr. M. was confi- 
dent that the decrees would bona fide cease on the 1st of November, 
1810, and our commercial relations with France be encumbered with no 
embarrassments whatever. Mr. S. told him he would converse with 
Turreau (the French minister) on the subject. In the subsequent cor- 
respondence, he says he " was greatly checked by the evident indications 
of utter indifference on the part of Mr. Madison. Instead of encouraging 
he absolutely discouraged the making of any animadversions upon Tur- 
reau's letter of December 12, 1810." The letter of Mr. S. was prepared 
after the receipt of a letter from the French minister of foreign affairs 
to our minister at Paris, in which the former had said : " The Americana 
can not hesitate as to the part which they are to take. They ought 
either to tear to pieces the act of their independence, and so become 
again, as before the revolution, the subjects of England. * * * Men 
without just political views, without honor, without energy, may allege 
that payment of the tribute imposed by England may be submitted to 
because it is light. * * * It will then be necessary to fight for 
interest, after having refused to fight for honor." 

Notwithstanding this disrespectful and offensive language, and the 
outrages upon our neutral rights, Mr. Madison objected to the letter of 
Mr. Smith on account of its severity, and instead of the animadversions it 
contained, he directed the insertion of simply the following : "As the John 
Adams is daily expected, and as your further communications by her 
will better enable me to adapt to the actual state of our affairs of the 
French government, the observations proper to be made in relation to 
their seizure of our property, and to the letter of the duke of Cadore of 
the 14th of February, it is by the president deemed expedient not to 
make at this time any such animadversions. I can not, however, forbear 
informing you, that a high indignation is felt by the president, as well 
as by the public, at this act of violence on our property, and at the out- 
rage, both in the language and in the matter, of the letter of the duke of 
Cadore, so justly portrayed in your note to him of the 10th of March.' 
Mr. Smith calls attention to the fact, that the last sentence was addressed 
to Gen. Armstrong personally, and not intended for the French govern- 
ment ; showing, he says, " that our executive had at that time, but just 
resolution enough to impart to his own minister the sentiments of indigna- 
tion that had been here excited by the enormous outrage of the Rambouil- 
let decree, and by the insulting audacity of the duke of Cadore's letter." 

Congress, Mr. S. said, had been, during the preceding session, embar- 
rassed as to the course to be taken with respect to our foreign relations, 
from the defect in the communications to them as to the views of the 
emperor And when the arrival of Serrurier the French envoy, was 



246 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

announced, congress suspended proceedings touching our foreign rela- 
tions, in order to avail themselves of information from France since 
the Ist of November, the day fixed for the repeal of the decrees to tako 
effect. Mr. Smith, to relieve the impatience of congress, prepared a 
letter to Serrurier, proposing the following questions : 

" 1st. Were the Berlin and Milan decrees revoked, in whole or in 
part, on the first day of last November ? Or have they at any time 
posterior to that day been so revoked ? Or have you instructions from 
your government to give this government any assurance or explanation 
in relation to the revocation or modification of those decrees ? 

" 2d. Do the existing decrees of France admit into French ports, with 
or without licenses, American vessels laden with articles the produce of 
the United States, and under what regulations and conditions ? 

" 3d. Do they admit into French ports, with or without licenses, 
American vessels laden with articles 7iot the produce of the United 
States, and under what regulations and conditions ? 

" 4th. Do they permit American vessels, with or without licenses, to 
return from France to the United States, and upon what terms and con- 
ditions ? 

" 5th. Is the importation into France of any articles, the produce of 
the United States, absolutely prohibited ? And if so, what are the 
articles so prohibited ? and especially are tobacco and cotton ? 

" 6th. Have you instructions from your government to give to this 
government any assurance or explanation in relation to the American 
vessels and cargoes seized under the Rambouillet decree ?" 

The sending of this letter, however, was interdicted by the president, 
aa being in his opinion inexpedient. This refusal of the president to 
permit these inquiries to be made, when the revocation of the decreets 
was so much questioned, and when congress was so desirous for informa- 
tion, was pronounced by his opponents to have been dictated cither by 
a fear of Bonaparte, or by an undue regard for the French nation. 

Before the arrival of Serrurier, and in anticipation of the expiration 
of the three mouths from the 1st of November, allowed to Great Britain 
by the conditional non-importation law of May, 1810, a bill was intro- 
duced into the house to revive, as to Great Britain, the non-importation 
provisions of the acts of 1809 and 1810. Action upon the bill had for 
some days been suspended for information daily expected by the new 
minister from France, when a motion was made to take up the bill for 
the purpose of adding a provision against the forfeiture of goods already 
shipped and arriving from British ports after- the 2d of March, as it was 
presumed tliat goods had been ordered, and shipped before the president's 
proclamation was known. A proposition was made by Mr. Randolph to 



THE TWELFTH CONGRESS. 247 

relinquish the whole restrictive system. To which it was objected, that 
our pledges to France required its continuance. Notwithstanding it was 
known that two vessels had been seized under the Berlin and Milan 
decrees since the 1st of November, and notwithstanding Serrurier came 
before the passage of the bill, without instructions to make any explana- 
tions of the seizures, but with instructions to refuse indemnity for 
seizures under the Bayonne and Rambouillet decrees ; the bill was passed. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

TWELFTH CONGRESS. BRITISH PLOT. THE WAR QUESTION IN CON- 
GRESS. DECLARATION OF WAR. 

The 12th congress, having been convened by proclamation before 
the regular day of meeting, commenced its session the 4th of November, 
1811. The principal topics of the president's message were those of our 
relations with Grreat Britain and France and of the public defense. 
Although he spoke of the French decrees as having been repealed, he 
complained that the measure had not been followed by such others as 
were due to our reasonable claims and the amicable professions of the 
French government ; but no proof had yet been given of an intention 
to repair the other wrongs done to the United States, and particularly 
to restore the great amount of American property seized and condemned 
under her edicts. The United States had also much reason to be dis- 
satisfied with the rigorous and unexpected restrictions to which their 
trade with the French dominions had been subjected, and which, if not 
discontinued, would require at least corresponding restrictions on impor- 
tations from France. 

Great Britain was complained of for persisting in her refusal to revoke 
her orders in council " after the successive confirmations of the extinc- 
tion of the French decrees, so far as they violated our neutral com- 
merce." The orders had been, "when least to have been expected, put 
into more rigorous execution;" and it had been " communicated through 
the British envoy just 9,rrived, that while the revocation of the edicts of 
France, as officially made known to the British government, was denied 
to have taken place, it was an indispensable condition of the repeal of 
the British orders, that commerce should be restored to a footing that 
would admit the productions and manufactures of Great Britain, wheo 



248 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

owned by neutrals, into markets shut against them by her enemy ; the 
United States being given to understand, that, in the mean time, a con- 
tinuance of their non-importation act would lead to measures of retalia- 
tion." 

On the subject of defense, the president said '' the period had arrived 
which claimed from the legislative guardians of the national rights a 
system of more ample provision for maintaining them." And he con- 
sidered it the duty of congress " to put the United States into an armor 
and an attitude demanded by the crisis, and corresponding with the 
national spirit and expectations." 

On the 9th of March, 1812, the president communicated to congress 
certain documents disclosing a secret plot, on the part of Great Britain, 
to dismember the union, and to form the eastern states into a political 
connection with Great Britain. 

In the winter of 1809, John Henry was employed by Sir James H. 
Craig, late governor-general of Canada, to undertake a secret mission to 
the United States with a view to this object. He was directed to pro- 
ceed to Boston, from which place he was to keep governor Craig informed 
of " the state of public opinion with regard to their internal politics, 
and to the probability of a war with England ; the comparative strength 
of the two great parties into which the country was divided ; and the 
views and designs of that which might ultimately prevail." It was 
hoped, if the federalists should obtain suflScient influence to direct public 
opinion, they would, rather than submit to the continuance of the diffi- 
culties and distress to which they were then subject, exert their influence 
to bring about a separation from the general union. 

Henry was advised not to appear as an avowed agent ; but if he could 
obtain an intimacy with any of the leading men, he might insinuate, 
though with great caution, that if they should wish to enter into any 
communication with the British government, he might receive it and 
transmit it to him (Craig.) Henry proceeded through Vermont and 
New Hampshire to Boston, from which place most of his letters to Craig 
and his secretary, Rylaud, were written. Having suggested in his last 
letter from this place, that, " in the present state of things in this coun- 
try, his presence could contribute very little to the interest of Great 
Britain," he was recalled. It does not appear that Henry had conver- 
sation with any person in this country on the object of his mission. 

As a compensation for his services, Craig had promised him an office 
worth a thousand pounds a year. The office not having been received, 
and a memorial to the British government on the subject having failed 
of securing relief, he made a disclosure of the plot to Mr. Monroe, 
secretary of state, for which the president paid him out of the secret 



BRITISH PLOT. 249 

service fund, $50,000. Henry's letter of disclosure to Mr. Monroe was 
dated the 20th of February, 1812, at Philadelphia, he having been at 
Washington and received his money. Mr. Madison did not communi- 
cate the disclosures to congress till the 9th of March, after Henry had 
^ sailed for Europe. 

In the British parliament, on the 5th of May, lord Holland moved 
an address to the prince regent for the production of all the correspond- 
ence between Sir James Craig and the British government, relating to 
the employment of Henry. In the debate on this motion, some of the 
lords vindicated the conduct of Craig, who, when he had heard that the 
points in controversy between the two governments had been adjusted 
by Mr. Madison and Mr. Erskine, recalled Henry ; which proved that 
his instructions had been given in contemplation of hostilities between 
the two countries. Others reprobated, as dishonorable, the endeavor to 
seduce American subjects from their allegiance to their own country, 
while the two governments were employed in amicable negotiation for 
peace. They thought the honor of their country, and satisfaction to the 
American government, required an absolute denial on the part of minis- 
ters, or a condemnation of the measure by parliament. It does not 
appear from this debate, that the scheme was known by the British gov- 
ernment, until after Henry's return from the United States. The 
excitement produced by these disclosures soon subsided. 

At an early period of the session, November 29, 1811, the committee 
on foreign relations, Peter B. Porter, of New York, chairman, made a 
report stating that France had repealed the Berlin and Milan decrees, 
so far as concerned the United States; and that Great Britain, " instead 
of retracting that unjustifiable attack on neutral rights, in which she 
professed to be only the reluctant follower of France, had advanced 
with bolder and continually advancing strides, demanding as a condition 
of her revoking her orders, that France and her allies should admit 
into their territories the products and manufactures of Great Britain." 
The committee reported resolutions recommending the increase of the 
military force ; the fitting up of the vessels belonging to the navy and 
worthy of repair ; and allowing merchant vessels to arm in self-defense. 
After considerable debate, in which Mr. Randolph took a prominent 
part against the resolutions, they were all adopted, December 19. 

The debates on the bill carrying these resolutions into eflfect indicated 
the existence of strong parties in both houses in favor of war, although 
it is doubtful whether war was thus early intended by the administra- 
tion. Certain it is, that there were many republicans who considered 
that a war at that time would be premature. Indeed, such was the 
reluctance of Mr. Madison to engage in a war — with whom Mr. Galla 



250 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tin, secretary of the treasury, concurred — that the congressiocal caucus 
to nominate a candidate for president at the approaching election, waa 
for a time delayed, as the war party was unwilling to support him unless 
he should determine to go for war. Mr. Monroe was preferred by the 
most zealous friends of the war. In New York the war party was in^ 
favor of De Witt Clinton, who, notwithstanding the nomination of Mr. 
Madison, was subsequently nominated by the republican members of the 
legislature of that state. 

The 1st of April, 1812, the president sent to congress a confidential 
nressage, recommending the immediate passage of an act laying a general 
embargo, for sixty days, on all vessels in port, and thereafter arriving. 
A bill for that purpose was forthwith introduced by Mr. Calhoun. In 
the course of the debate it was declared by Mr. Grundy and Mr. Clay, 
both ardent supporters of the bill, to be a preliminary war measure. 
The bill was passed the same day. It was amended in the senate so as 
to extend the period of its operation to ninety days ; the amendment 
was concurred in by the house ; and the bill was approved by the presi- 
dent on the 4th. This act was succeeded, on the 8th, by an act to in- 
crease the military force ; on the 10th, by another authorizing a detach- 
ment of 100,000 men from the militia of the United States; and on 
the 14th, by an act to prohibit the exportation of specie or goods during 
the existence of the embargo. 

On the 18th of May, the republican caucus was held. It was 
attended by 17 senators and 65 representatives. Mr. Madison having 
consented to recommend war, received the nomination unanimously. 
For vice-president, John Langdon of New Hampshire received 64 votes, 
and was nominated. He, however, declined the nomination on account 
of age and infirmity ; and Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who had 
received sixteen votes in the caucus, was afterward substituted. A few 
days after the congressional nomination, De Witt Clinton was nominated 
by the republican m^bers of the legislature of New York. 

About the last of May, dispatches arrived from Mr. Barlow, our 
minister at Paris. Nothing definite had been accomplished by him. 
There was, however, some prospect, so he wrote, of the conclusion of a 
treaty of commerce, on principles of reciprocity ; although a letter 
from him to the Duke of Bassano of some six weeks' later date (March 
12, 1812), calling his attention to a case of plundering and burning an 
American vessel, complained that he was " obliged so frequently to call 
the attention of his excellency to such lawless depredations." In one 
of his letters to the secretary of state, he said Mr. Kussell (at London) 
had written him again for additional proofs of the repeal of the decrees; 
and he had sent him a list of vessels which had been restored by the 



THE WAK. QUESTION IN CONGRESS. 251 

emperor. No encouragement had been given of indemnity for French 
spoliations on our commerce. 

On the 1st of June, 1812, the president sent to both houses of con- 
gress a confidential message recommending war with Great Britain. In 
setting forth the grounds or causes of war, the impressment of our sea- 
men was first mentioned. Persons sailing under the American flag had 
been seized and carried off, not in the exercise of a belligerent right 
founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal 
prerogative over British subjects. Under the pretext of searching our 
vessels for her own subjects, thousands of American citizens had been 
taken, and forced to serve on British ships of war. 

British cruisers, said the message, had also violated the rights and 
peace of our coasts. They hovered over and harassed our entering and 
departing commerce, and had wantonly spilled American blood within 
our own territorial jurisdiction. Our commerce had also been plun- 
dered under her pretended blockades, in the face of the definition, by her 
own government, of a legal blockade ; viz., that " particular ports must 
be actually invested, and previous warning given to vessels bound to 
them not to enter." Next came the sweeping system of blockades 
under the name of orders in council, which had been moulded and man- 
aged to suit her political views, her commercial interests, and the 
avidity of British cruisers. Our remonstrances against the injustice 
of this innovation were met with the reply, that these orders had been 
reluctantly adopted as a necessary retaliation on the decrees of her 
enemy, which proclaimed a general blockade of the British isles, at a 
time when the force of that enemy dared not issue from his own ports. 
Great Britain had been reminded that her own prior unsupported block- 
ades were a bar to this plea. And when the ground of this plea had 
been removed by the repeal of the decrees of her enemy prohibiting 
our trade with Great Britain, instead of a corresponding repeal of her 
orders, had avowed the determination to persist in them until the mar- 
kets of her enemy should be opened to her products. And farther, she 
required, as a prerequisite to the repeal of her orders, a needless for- 
mality (an official publication or promulgation) to be observed in the 
repeal of the French decrees, and the extension of the repeal to other 
neutral nations. Thus it had become sufficiently certain, that the com- 
merce of the United States was to be sacrificed, as interfering with a 
monopoly which Great Britain coveted for her own commerce and navi- 
gation. She carried on a war against the lawful commerce of a friend, 
that she might the better carry on a commerce with an enemy — a com- 
merce polluted by the forgeries and perjuries which were for the most 



,252 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

part the only passports by which it could succeed ; (alluding to the 
forged papers granted to vessels under the American name.) 

The president adverted to the arrangement made with Mr. Erskine, 
the British minister at Washington, in 1809. Had not the British 
government disavowed the act of its minister, a lasting reconciliation 
would probably have been effected. He considered that there was on 
the side of Great Britain a state of war against the United States, and 
on the side of the United States, a state of peace toward Great Britain. 
Had Great Britain revoked her blockades and orders, the way would 
have been opened for a general repeal of the belligerent edicts ; and if 
France had refused to repeal her decrees, the United States would have 
been justified in turning their measures exclusively against France. 

The president also expressed the opinion, that the recent renewal of 
hostilities by the north-western Indians had been instigated by British 
influence. 

Two days after the receipt of this message, the committee on foreign 
relations, through Mr. Calhoun, made a report to the house in favor of 
war. This report gave a review of the controversy, declaring the British 
blockade of May, 1806, to be the first aggression on our commerce ; and 
the first on the part of France was the decree of Berlin of November 
21st, 1806. It embraced the same points as the message, to which it 
may be considered as an affirmative response. 

At the time of the communication of the message, and of the prepara- 
tion and presentation of the report, as also the proceedings on the bill 
reported by the committee declaring war, all of which was done with 
closed doors, a correspondence was going on between Mr. Foster and 
Mr. Monroe. With his letter of the 30th of May, Mr. Foster commu- 
nicated a copy of a report of the French minister of foreign relations to 
king Napoleon, communicated to the conservative senate, at the sitting 
of March 10, 1812, and which Mr. F. considered as confirming the as- 
sertions of his government, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had never 
been revoked. The doctrines asserted in that report were pronounced 
repugnant to the law of nations. They were as follows : 

" The maritime rights of neutrals have been solemnly regulated bj 
the treaty of Utrecht, which has become the common law of nations ; 
having been expressly renewed in all the subsequent treaties between the 
maritime powers. 

" The flag covers the property. Enemy's property under a neutral 
flag, is neutral ; as neutral property under an enemy's flag is enemy'.s 
property. The only articles which the flag does not cover, are contra- 
band articles ; and the only articles which are contraband, are arms and 
munitions of war. 



THE WAR QUESTION .N CONGRESS. 253 

" A visit of a neutral vessel by an armed vessel can only be made by 
a small number of men, the armed vessel keeping beyond the reach of 
cannon-shot. 

" Every neutral vessel may trade from an enemy's port to an enemy's 
port, and from an enemy's port to a neutral port. The only ports ex- 
cepted are those really blockaded ; and the ports really blockaded are 
those which are invested, besieged, and in danger of being taken, and 
into which a merchant ship could not enter without danger." 

This report also declared that the Milan decree denationalized every 
vessel which had submitted to English legislation, known to have 
touched at an English port, known to have paid a tribute to England, 
and which had thereby renounced the independence and the rights of its 
flag. All the merchandise of the commerce and of the industry of 
England were blockaded in the British isles ; the continental system ex- 
cluded them from the continent. And it declared farther, that " as 
long as the British orders in council are not revoked, and the principles 
of the treaty of Utrecht in relation to neutrals put in force, the decrees 
of Berlin ought to subsist for the powers who suffer their flag to be de- 
nationalized. The ports of the continent ought to be opened neither to 
denationalized flags nor to English merchandise." 

Mr. Monroe said, in reply, that this report of the French minister 
evidently referred to the continental system, by the means relied on to 
enforce it ; it afforded no proof that the French government intended 
by it to violate its engagement to t\e United States, as to the repeal of 
the decrees. 

Letters also passed between these gentlemen on the subject of im- 
pressed seamen. Mr. Foster cited cases in which British seamen had 
been encouraged to desert his majesty's service, and of others who had 
been detained against their will on board American ships of v;ar ; but 
says his sovereign (then the prince regent) would continue to give the 
most positive orders against the detention of American citizens on board 
his majesty's ships. 

Mr. Monroe objected to the attempt to show the analogy between the 
American practice and the British. They were quite different. The 
regulations of the United States prohibited the enlistment of aliens into 
their vessels of war. No such regulations existed on the side of Great 
Britain. Enlistments by force or impressment were contrary to the 
laws of the United States. This mode of procuring crews from public 
ships was practiced by Great Britain, not only within her legal jurisdic- 
tion, but was extended to foreign vessels on the high seas. As to the 
orders against the detention of American citizens on board British ships 
of war, they would afford no adequate remedy. Orders should be given 



254 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

against impressment itself ; and nothing short of this would be effectual, 
or prove a disposition to do justice or promote a good understanding 
between the two countries. 

On the 18th of June, 1812, the injunction of secrecy having been re- 
moved from the proceedings of congress, a declae.ation of war was an- 
nounced, and the message of the president, and the report or manifesto of 
the committee on foreign relations was published, with the act declaring 
the war. On the final passage of the bill, the vote in the senate was 
19 to 13 ; in the house, 79 to 49. 

Before the adjournment, the federal members of the house of repre- 
sentatives published an address to their constituents, on the subject of 
the war with Qreat Britain. The minority complain that they had 
been called into secret session on the most interesting of all public rela- 
tions, without any reason for secrecy. No fact not previously known 
was before the house, and no reason for secrecy existed, unless it was 
found in the apprehension of the effect of public debate on public opinion, 
or of public opinion on the result of the vote. 

The object of waging war and invading Canada, the address said, had 
long been openly avowed, while, as was well known, our army and navy 
were inadequate for successful invasion, and our fortifications were insuffi 
cient for the security of our seaboard. Yet the people had been kept in 
ignorance of the progress of measures until the purposes of the adminis- 
tration were consummated, and the fate of the country was sealed. The 
demand of the minority for open doors having been refused, they declined 
discussion, convinced that, in the house, all argument with closed doors 
was hopeless. 

In speaking of the alleged causes of war, on the subject of impress- 
ment, they remarked : " The government of the United States asserts 
the broad principle, that the flag of their merchant vessels shall protect 
the mariners. The privilege is claimed, although every person on board 
except the captain may be an alien. The British government asserts 
that the allegiance of their subjects is inalienable, in time of war, and 
that their seamen, found on the sea, the common highway of nations, 
shall not be protected by the flag of private merchant vessels." This 
doctrine, they said, was common to all the governments of Europe. 
France, as well as England, claimed, in time of war, the services of her 
subjects. Both, by decrees, forbid their entering into foreign employ : 
both recall them by proclamation. None doubted that, in the present 
state of the French marine, if American merchant vessels were met at 
sea, having French seamen on board, France would take them. Did any 
man believe that the United States would go to war with France on this 
account? They considered impressment to be a subject of arrange- 



THE WAR QUESTION. 255 

ment rather than of war. It had been so treated by every former ad- 
ministration. 

England, they said, had disavowed the right of impressment as it re- 
spected our native citizens ; and an arrangement, it was believed, might 
be made in regard to such as were naturalized. Indeed, Mr. King, 
when minister to England, had obtained from the British government a 
disavowal of the right to impress American seamen, naturalized as well 
as native, on the high seas. An arrangement had been advanced nearly 
to a conclusion, upon this basis, and was broken off only because Great 
Britain insisted on retaining the right on the narrow seas. Mr. King 
was of the opinion, however, " that with more time than was left him for 
the experiment, the objection might have been overcome." Mr. Madison, 
it appeared, was himself of the same opinion. In his letters to Messrs. 
Monroe and Pinkney, in February, 1807, he says : " I take it for grant- 
ed that you have not failed to make due use of the arrangement concert- 
ed by Mr. King with lord Hawkcsbury in the year 1802, for settling the 
question of impressment. On that occasion, and under that administra- 
tion, the British principle was fairly renounced in favor of the right of 
our flag, lord Hawkesbury having agreed to prohibit impressment on the 
' high seas,' and lord Vincents requiring no more than an exception of 
the narrow seas, an exception resting on the obsolete claim of Great 
Britain to some peculiar dominion over them." 

It appeared farther, that the British ministry had called for an inter- 
view with Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney on this topic, at which they 
had gone so far as to offer, on the part of Great Britain, to pass laws 
making it penal for British commanders to impress American citizens on 
board of American vessels on the high seas, if America could pass a law 
making it penal for the officers of the United States to grant certificates 
of citizenship to British subjects. And Mr. Monroe, after his return, in 
a letter from Richmond to Mr. Madison, dated February 28, 1808, said : 
" I have, on the contrary, always believed^ and still do believe, that the 
ground on which that interest (impressment) was placed by the paper 
of the British commissioners of the 8th of November, 1806, and the ex- 
planation which accompanied it, was both honorable and advantageous 
to the United States ; that it contained a concession in their favor, on 
the part of Great Britain, on the great principle in contestation, never 
before made by a formal and obligatory act of their government, which 
was highly favorable to their interest." In view of these facts, the mi- 
nority thought this subject furnished no proper cause of war. 

They undertook to show also, that the blockade of 1806, which had 
been made a specific ground of complaint, and a cause of war, was re- 
garded at first as favorable to the United States. As the manner in 



256 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

which the American and French governments, in their official papers, 
had spoken of the order of blockade, was vague and indeterminate, and 
calculated to mislead, they presented the following facts: In August, 
1804, the British established a blockade at the entrance of the French 
portsfromOstend to the Seine. The nearness of these ports to the British 
coasts, and the absence of all complaint, authorized the belief that the 
blockade was lawful, and enforced according to the usage of nations. On 
the 16th of May, 1806, the English secretary of state, Mr. Fox, notified 
our minister at London, Mr. Monroe, that the British government had 
thousht fit to direct measures to be taken for the blockade of the coasts, 
rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the river Brest, both inclusive. 
The order, however, declared " that such blockade shall not prevent 
neutral vessels laden with goods not being the property of his majesty's 
enemies, and not contraband of war, from approaching, entering, or leav- 
ing the said coasts, rivers, and ports, except those from Ostend to the 
Seine, already in a state of rigorous blockade, and which are to be so 
continued ;" and provided that the vessels entering had not been laden 
at an enemy's port, and the vessels departing were not destined to an 
enemy's port. 

Hence it appeared, that the order did not actually extend the block- 
ade ; and instead of operating against our trade, it was considered at 
the time as designed to favor it, as the minority infer from the letters of 
Monroe to Mr. Madison. On the 17th of May, 1806, he wrote, that the 
order of blockade was " couched in terms of restraint, and professes to 
extend the blockade further than was heretofore done ; nevertheless it 
takes it from many ports already blockaded ; indeed from all east of 
Ostend, and west of the Seine, except in articles contraband of war and 
enemy's property, which are seizable without blockade. And in like 
form of exception, .... it admits the trade of neutrals within the same 
limits to be free in the productions of enemies' colonies, in every but the 
direct route, between the colony and the parent country ;" adding, " it 
can not be doubted that the note was drawn by the government in refer- 
ence to the question ; and if intended as the foundation of a treaty, 
must be viewed in a favorable light." And on the 20th of May, he 
wrote, that he had been " strengthened in the opinion, that the order of 
the 16th was drawn with a view to the question of our trade with the 
enemies' colonies, and that it promises to be highly satisfactory to our 
commeicial interest" 

In reference to this blockade, the minority said, as Mr. Foster had 
said to Mr. Monroe, that " it had never been made the subject of 
complaint by the American government, until after the first order in 
council; and indeed not until the 1st of May, 1810, and until after the 



THE WAR QUESTION. 257 

American government was apprised of the ground which it was the will 
of France should be taken on the subject." In proof of this, they refer- 
red to the offers made during the administration of Mr. Jefferson for 
the discontinuance of the embargo as it related to Great Britain; none, 
of which required the repeal of the blockade of May, 1 80G. Nor was it 
required by the arrangement made with Mr. Erskine during the adminis- 
tration of Mr. Madison. It did not appear to be of sufficient import- 
ance to engage even a thought; yet, under the act of May, 1810, it is 
made by our cabinet a sine qua non — an indispensable requisite ! 

The British orders in council, were the remaining cause of war. They 
had heretofore been considered by our government in connection with the 
French decrees. Certainly, both formed a system subversive of neutral 
rights ; yet the undersigned could not persuade themselves that the or- 
ders in council, as they now existed, and with their present effect and 
operation, justified the selection of Great Britain as our enemy, and ren- 
dered necessary a declaration of unqualified war. 

It was contended that the Berlin and Milan decrees had never been 
revoked. The condition on which the non-intercourse, according to the 
act of the 1st of May, 1810, was to be revived against Great Britain, 
was, on the part of France, an effectual revocation of her decrees. The 
president was bound to require evidence of such revocation. A revoca- 
tion to be effectual, must require, that the wrongs done to the commerce 
of the United States by the operation of the decrees should be stopped. 
According to the address, the release of vessels, after capture and deten- 
tion, was not evidence of the repeal. The autliority to capture^ was the 
very essence of the wrong, and must be annulled, before the decrees 
could be considered effectually revoked. The letter of the duke of Ca- 
dore of the .5th of August, 1810, was no annullment of this authority. 
The imperial act which gave the authority, required, to annul it, another 
imperial act equally formal and solemn. This subject was pursued at great 
length, with a view to prove that these decrees had never been revoked. 

Was there any thing in the friendship or commerce of France, they 
asked, very interesting or alluring for entering into hostilities ? Of our 
exports during the last year, amounting to upwards of 45 millions of 
dollars, a little more than one million in value was exported to France. 
France was now deprived of all her foreign colonies ; and our trade to 
that country had been, for several years past, and before the date of the 
orders in council, comparatively inconsiderable. 

" But," says the address, " it is said that war is demanded by honor. 
Is national honor a principle which thirsts after vengeance, and is appeased 
only by blood ? which, trampling on the hopes of man, and spurning the 
laws of God, untaught bv what is past, and careless of what is to come 

17 



258 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

precipitates itself into any folly or madness, to gratify a selfisli vanity, or 
to satiate some unhallowed rage? If honor demands a war with Eng- 
land, what opiate lulls that honor to sleep over the wrongs done us by 
France ? On land, robberies, seizures, imprisonments by French author- 
ity ; at sea, pillage, sinkings, burnings under French orders. Thesfe are 
notorious. Are they unfelt because they are French ? Is any allevia- 
tion to be found in the correspondence and humiliations of the present 
minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the French court ? In 
his communications to our government, as before the public, where is the 
cause for selecting France as the friend of our country, and England 
as the enemy ?" * * * 

" At a crisis of the world such as the present, and under impressions 
such as these, the undersigned could not consider the war into which 
the United States have, in secret, been precipitated, as necessary, or 
required by any moral duty, or any political expediency." 

This address was signed by 34 members of the house, all federalists ; 
of whom there were, from New Hampshire, 1 ; Massachusetts, 8 ; Con- 
necticut 7 ; Uhodc Island, 2 ; Vermont, 1 ; New York, 4 ; Pennsyl- 
vania, 1 ; Delaware, 1 ; Maryland, 3 ; Virginia, 4 ; North Carolina, 2. 
There were only two federalists in the house who did not sign the address : 
and their names are not among the yeas or nays on the passage of the 
war act. Of the republicans who voted against war, there were from 
Massachusetts, 1 ; New York, 7 ; New Jersey, 4 ; Virginia, (Randolph) 
1 ; Pennsylvania, 1 ; North Carolina, 1. 

Although all the federal members of the house, and nearly the whole 
federal party, were opposed to the declaration of war ; yet many of the 
party, after war had been declared, gave it their support as a measure 
of the country. Among its federal supporters of distinction, was ex- 
president John Adams. 

A few days before the declaration of war, an arrival from Europe 
brought a copy of a decree of Napoleon, repealing the Berlin and Milan 
decrees. This decree of repeal was dated April 28, 1811, and was in 
the following words : 

" On the report of our minister for foreign affairs. 

" Being informed of the law of the 2d of March, 1811, by which the 
congress of the United States has decreed the exemption of the provis- 
ions of the act of non-intercourse, which interdicts the entry into Ameri- 
can ports, of the ships and the merchandise of Great Britain, her colonies 
and dependencies : 

" Considering that the said law is an act of resistance to the arbitrary 
pretensions advanced by the British orders in council, and a formal 
refusal to sanction a system hostile to the independence of neutral pow- 
ers and of their flag-s • 



BRITISH ORDERS REVOKED. 259 

" We have decreed, and do decree, as follows : 

" The decrees of Berlin and Milan are definitely (from the 1st of 
November last,) considered as no longer in force, as far as regards 
American vessels." 

A powerful incentive to the publication of this decree, is presumed to 
have been, that the British government was making use of the duke of 
Bassano's report of the 10th of March, to prove the non-repeal of the 
Berlin and Milan decrees. And probably this fact aided our minister, 
Mr. Barlow, in extracting this decree from the emperor. It was strongly 
suspected, that no act of repeal had taken place previously to the publi- 
cation of the above. This suspicion was justified by the fact, that neither 
Mr. Bussell, who was charg^ at Paris at the time the decree purports to 
have been issued, nor Mr. Serrurier, the French minister at Washington, 
had any information of it, as they both asserted against the declaration 
of Bassano to Mr. Barlow that it had been communicated to both of 
them. Its bearing date nearly a year before its appearance, afforded, of 
itself, strong ground for doubting its preexistenee. 

Early in August intelligence was received of the revocation of the 
British orders in council. The prince regent, in the name and on be- 
half of the king, had, on the 21st of April, 1812, issued a declaration, 
" That if, at any time thereafter, the Berlin and Milan decrees should, 
by some authentic act of the French government, publicly promulgated, 
be unconditionally repealed, the orders in council of the 7th of January, 
1807, and of the 26th of April, 1809, should thenceforth be wholly 
revoked." Mr. Russell, our charge at liondon, having, on the 21st of 
May, transmitted to lord Castlereagh a copy of the French decree of 
repeal, the prince regent, on the 23d* of June, publicly declared the orders 
to be revoked, so far as might regard American vessels and their cargoes 
being American property, from the 1st day of August next. He stated, 
however, that he did not consider the conditions of his order in April as 
satisfied by the French decree, but he was " disposed to take such meas- 
ures as might tend to reestablish the intercourse between the neutral 
and belligerent nations upon its accustomed principles." The revocation 
was of course conditioned upon the repeal, by the United States, of the 
non-intercourse acts by which British vessels were excluded from our 
ports. 

This act of the British government was caused by the complaints of 
the manufacturers, who had begun to feel the effects of the renewal of 
)ur non-importation act, and in whose behalf some movement had been 
uade in parliament, and by the favor which the measure received from 
^ihe new ministry ; there having been an entire change in that branch of 
*he British government. 



260 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Soon after the declaration of war, Mr. Foster took his departure, bear- 
ing a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Russell, charge at London, author- 
izing him to propose to the British government a suspension of hostili- 
ties with a view to an adjustment of all difficulties between the two 
countries. The conditions of the proposed armistice were, that the 
orders in council should be revoked, and no illegal blockades substituted 
for them ; and that orders should be given to discontinue the impress- 
ment of seamen from our vessels, and to restore those already impressed. 
As an inducement to the British government to discontinue impressments, 
assurances might be given, that a law would be passed by congress to 
prohibit the employment of British seamen in our vessels, public or 
private ; a similar prohibtion to be enacted by Great Britain against the 
employment of x\merican citizens. These reciprocal enactments would 
operate most in favor of Great Britain, as few of our seamen voluntarily 
entered the British service. 

In a subsequent letter of the 27th of July, Mr. Monroe authorized 
Mr. Russell to modify the propositions so as to free them still farther 
from reasonable objection on the part of Great Britain, by dispensing 
with th? former condition of an express previous stipulation on the sub- 
ject of impressment. That is, he might agree, in general terms, in order 
to allow full time for a general adjustment of difficulties, that an armis- 
tice should take place for that purpose, on the simple condition that com- 
missioners should be appointed by each party, with power to form a 
treaty providing to secure the seamen of each from being taken or em- 
ployed in the sei'vice of the other, and to regulate commerce and all 
other interesting questions between them. 

At Halifax, on his way home, Mr. Foster received dispatches from his 
government, dated about the 17th of June, and directed to him at Wash- 
ington, but which he there opened, informing him of the intended revo- 
cation of the orders in council, to take effect on the 1st of August. Pre- 
suming that the object of communicating this intention was to prevent or 
stop hostilities, he sent the dispatches to Mr. Baker, secretary to the 
British legation, still at Washington, and requested him to communicate 
to our government the contemplated change of policy on the part of 
Great Britain, and to propose a suspension of hostilities. Having had a 
conversation at Halifax with vice-admiral Sawyer, naval commander, and 
sir John Sherbroke, lieutenant-governor, he was authorized by them to 
say to Mr. Baker, that decisions of cases of capture of American vessels 
should be suspended. He had not seen sir George Provost, the governor- 
in-chief, and captain-general of the land forces ; but he had written to 
him by express, and did not doubt his agreeing to the arrangement. Our 
government, however, declined the proposition, alleging as a reason, that 



ARMISTICE DECLINED. 261 

It was not probable, ven if it was less liable to insuperable difficulties, 
that it could have any material effect sooner than the arrangement pro- 
posed through Mr. Russell, if it should be favorably received. 

These facts were communicated by letters of the 9th and 10th of 
August, to Mr. Russell, by Mr. Graham, acting as secretary in the tempo- 
rary absence of Mr. Monroe, who, after his return, wrote to Mr. Russell, 
detailing at length the principal reasons against accepting the proposition. 
1st. The president had no power to suspend judicial proceedings on 
prizes. 2d. The proposition did not proceed from the British govern- 
ment, and might not be approved by it. 3d. No security was proposed 
against the Indians, who had engaged in the war on the side of Great 
Britain. 4th. The proposition was not equal, as it would restrain us 
from attacking Canada, and give Great Britain time to augment her 
forces there. 5th. As a principal object of the war was redress for im- 
pressments, an agreement to suspend hostilities, even before the British 
government was heard from, might be considered a relinquishment of 
that claim. 6th. The instructions given him (Mr. Russell,) if met by 
the British government, might have already produced the same result in 
a greater extent and more satisfactory form. He also stated several 
points in which the declaration itself was objectionable. 

In September, Admiral Warren, who was sent out as commander of 
the British naval forces on the American coasts, arrived at Halifax. He 
had power also to propose an armistice, and negotiate an arrangement 
respecting the repeal of our non-intercourse regulations. The president 
was unwilling to suspend hostilities, without an agreement on the part 
of Great Britain to suspend her impressments ; and as Warren had no 
power on that subject, the proposals for an armistice were rejected. As 
the propositions through Mr. Russell to the British government were 
also rejected, the war was prosecuted. And, as the orders in council 
had been conditionally revoked, the only remaining grievance to be 
redressed by war, was that of impressment — a grievance, however, of 
great magnitude. The number of impressments has never been accu- 
rately ascertained. There were recorded in the state department, more 
than six thousand cases ; which, it was suppose J, was scarcely half the 
number actually impressed. Making all due allowance for cases of 
persons falsely claiming to be American citizens, the number must still 
have been very great. Many of them were doomed to a cruel service on 
board British vessels until they could prove themselves Americans, 
which, while in such condition, was in most cases impossible. And when 
at last war took place between the United States and Great Britain, they 
were compelled to fight against their own country, or suffer imprison- 
ment. Thousands, it is said, did actually choose the latter alternative 



262 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the most of whom, unable to procure the necessary proof of their origin, 
were not liberated till after the restoration of peace. The name of 
Dartmoor became notorious from the number confined within its prison. 

After the declaration of war, and before congress adjourned, acts 
having reference to the war were passed, for the more perfect organiza- 
tion of the army ; to authorize the issuing of treasury notes ; for impos- 
ing additional duties on imports ; to make farther appropriation for the 
defense of the maritime frontier and for the support of the navy ; for 
the safe keeping and accommodation of prisoners of war ; for prohibiting 
American vessels from trading with enemies of the United States; 
•besides several others. An act had passed in March, authorizing a loan 
not exceeding $11,000,000. An act was also passed before adjourn- 
ment, fixing the 1st Monday of November for the next meeting of con- 
gress. 

An act having been passed at the previous session of congress to 
enable the people of the territory of Orleans to form a constitution and 
state government, and for the admission of such state into the union ; 
an act was passed at the present session, declaring the state to be admit- 
ted into the union, with the name of Louisiana. And by another act, 
the name of the Louisiana territory was changed to that of Missouri, and 
its government to a territorial government of the first class, the legisla- 
ture being chosen by the people. 



CHAPTER XVIIL 

REELECTION OF MR. MADI9DN. CONTROVERSY AVITH MASSACHUSETTS AND 

CONNECTICUT. RUSSIA OFFERS TO MEDIATE. DUTIES AND TAXES. 

EMBARGO. ITS SUDDEN REPEAL. OFFER TO NEGOTIATE ACCEPTED. 

CAPITOL BURNED. HARTFORD COVENTION. BANK PROJECTS. 

The presidential election of 1812, resulted in the election of a 
majority of electors in favor of Messrs. Madison and Gerry for president 
and vice-president ; the former receiving 128 votes and the latter 131. 
DeWitt Clinton received 89 votes for president, and Jared Ingersoll, 
of Pennsylvania, 8G for vice-president. They were supported by the 
republican party of the state of New York, and the federal party gene- 
rally. Mr. Clinton was adopted by a general convention of the latter 
party, in which eleven states were represented; all of those north of the 
Potomac, with South Carolina. Though a republican, he was nominated 



CONTROVERSY \A TH MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT. 263 

with a view of defeating Mr. Madison, wliich the reduced strength of 
the federal party had rendered hopeless with a candidate of their own 
politics. Mr. IngersoU was a moderate federalist. 

The 2nd session of the 12th congress commenced on the 2nd day of 
November, 1812. The leading topics of the message were those relating 
to the war. He recapitulated the important events which had occurred 
since the last session ; presented the present condition of the country ; 
and recommended farther measures for the prosecution of the war. 
Among the subjects noticed in the message, was the refusal of the gov- 
ernors of Massachusetts and Connecticut to furnish the required detach- 
ments of militia toward the defense of the maritime frontier. One of 
the grounds of this refusal was, that, in their opinion, there was at that 
time no invasion, nor any danger of one, to render a call for the militia 
necessary. The denseness of the population along the sea-coast, espe- 
cially of Massachusetts, was such as to admit a speedy assembling of 
her well disciplined militia at any point of danger ; and the governor 
deemed it unnecessary either to take them from their employments, or to 
incur the expense of supporting an unemployed military force. Assuming 
the right to judge of the existence of an emergency which should justify 
such a call, they refused compliance. The legislature of Connecticut 
passed an act to raise a provisional army of 2,600 men for its own 
defense. 

An act was passed at this session authorizing a loan of sixteen mil- 
lions of dollars ; and an act authorizing the issue of treasury notes not 
exceeding the sum of five millions. 

With the expectation that the suspension of the non-importation act 
would, according to its own provisions, follow the repeal of the orders in 
council, American vessels in the ports of Great Britain at the time of 
the repeal, were loaded with British goods, which on arrival in our ports 
became forfeited. This exportation of goods from Great Britain con- 
tinued for several weeks, encouraged by the opinion of Mr. Russell, 
American charg^ at London, that the non-importation law would cease 
to operate. Eighteen millions' worth of goods which had during this 
time left England, was illegally brought into our ports. These goods, 
instead of being detained by the government, were delivered to the claim- 
ants, on their giving bonds for the amount of their value. An act was 
passed, mainly through the efforts of Mr. Cheves and Mr. Calhoun, 
though opposed by leading men of their own party, remitting the for- 
feitures under the act. The vote in the house on the bill was 64 to 61. 
The federal members, objecting to certain provisions of the bill, voted 
against it. 

By another act, the president was authorized to cause ample retalia- 



264 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tion to be made, according to the laws and usages of war among civilized 
nations, for any violations of such laws and usages which should be 
committed on American citizens by persons acting under British au- 
thority, or by Indians in alliance with the British government. 

An act was passed, near the close of the session, by which the next 
congress was required to meet on the 4th Monday of May. 

On the 3d of March, 1813, Mr. Madison's first term expired; and on 
the next day, he was again inaugurated. 

Mr. Adams was at this time, and had been since 1809, minister at St. 
Petersburg. With his approbation, it is said, the Russian emperor, 
Alexander, tendered his offices as mediator between the two governments. 
The offer was communicated to our government early in March, 1813, 
through Mr. Daschkoff, the Russian minister at Washington : whereupon 
Mr. Madison immediately nominated Mr. Gallatin, then secretary of the 
treasury, and Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, senator in congress, as ministers, 
with whom Mr. Adams was to be associated, to negotiate a peace with 
Great Britain. Both the former gentlemen were, it is said, in favor of 
peace. Mr. Crawford, senator from Georgia, was appointed minister to 
France, in place of Mr. Barlow deceased. 

Congress, pursuant to the act of the preceding session, met on the 
24th day of May, 1813. The nomination of commissioners to negotiate 
peace with Great Britain was at an early day submitted to the senate. 
The nomination of Mr. Adams and Mr. Bayard was confirmed, but that 
of Mr. Gallatin was rejected, for the reason that he still held the office 
of secretary of the treasury. TBe nomination of Mr. Russell as minister 
to Sweden, was also rejected. 

In his message to congress, the president noticed with satisfaction the 
proffer of mediation by the Russian emperor, and stated that it had 
been promptly accepted ; and he presumed from the sentiments of 
Great Britain toward that sovereign, that rt had also been accepted by 
the British government. 

The principal subject of the message was the increase of the revenue, 
which was necessary to meet the demands upon the treasury the coming 
year. To provide for this object appears to have been the chief design 
of this early meeting of the new congress. Several acts for the purpose 
were passed. By one of these acts, a direct tax of three millions was 
levied on real estate and slaves. Another imposed a duty of four cents 
a pound on all sugar refined within the United States. Another laid a 
duty on pleasure carriages : on every coach, $20 a year ; on a chariot or 
post-chaise, $17 ; on a phaeton or coachee, $10; on a four-wheel car- 
riage hanging on steel or iron springs, $7 ; on a four-wheel carriage on 
wooden springs, and a two-wheel carriage on iron or steel springs, $4; 



DUTIES AND TAXES. 265 

and on every other four or two wheel carriage, $2. An act was also 
passed laying duties on licenses to distillers of spirituous liquors. The 
duty was laid per gallon, not according to the number of gallons manu- 
factured, but according to the capacity of the still, including the head 
thereof. On a license for two weeks, 9 cents a gallon ; the proportional 
duty per gallon slightly diminishing for a longer term, being for six 
months 70 cents a gallon. A higher duty was imposed if the spirits 
were manufactured from foreign materials. A duty of one per cent, 
was laid on sales at auction. Duties were also laid on licenses to retail- 
ers of wines, spirituous liquors, and foreign merchandise. The duty 
annually on a license was from $10 to $25, being graduated according 
to the number of families within a given territory ; and being also less 
or more if only a part or if all the different classes of goods were to be 
sold. Duties were also laid on stamps; viz., on bank notes or bills, one 
per cent. ; on bonds or promissory notes discounted by banks, and on bills 
of exchange, certain fixed sums, according to the amount specified in 
the obligation or writing. And the secretary of the treasury was au- 
thorized to compound with the banks for one and a half per cent, on their 
annual dividends, in lieu of the stamp duty. From the:e duties two 
millions were expected. The duties and taxes imposed by the preceding 
acts were to begin with the year 1814. An additional sum of $7,500,000 
was authorized to be raised by loan. 

An act was passed at this session, allowing a bounty of $25 to the 
owners, officers and crews of private armed vessels, (privateers,) for each 
prisoner captured and brought into port. Also an act prohibiting our 
citizens from obtaining or using any license granted by the government 
of Great Britian for the protection of any vessel or merchandise, under 
a penalty of double the value of the ship and merchandise, besides 
being liable to be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined not ex- 
ceeding $5,000, nor less than $1,000. 

The 2d session of the 1 3th congress commenced on the 6th of Decem- 
ber, 1813. An account of the progress of- the war, and the state of the 
finances, constituted the burden of the president's message. He made 
mention also of the unexpected refusal of Great Britain to accept the 
mediation of Russia. 

On the 9th of December, he communicated a confidential message 
recommending another embargo. Supplies of the most essential kind, 
he said, were finding their way to British ports and armies ; and British 
goods were coming into our ports, in contravention of the non-importa- 
tion act, often in British vessels disguised as neutrals by false colors and 
papers. To prevent these and several^ other evils, an embargo was 
deemed necessary. An act, very stringent in its provisions, was accord- 



.266 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

mgly passed in secret session. Such was the operatiou of this act upon 
coasting vessels, that it was soon found necessary to pass an act permitting 
the return to the ports where they were owned, of such of these vessels 
as were in other districts at the time of the passage of the embargo act. 

The issue of treasury notes to the amount of five millions, and a loan 
of twenty-five millions, were authorized ; and several acts were also 
passed for the increase of the army and the support of the navy. 

Before the close of the session, an act was unexpectedly passed, re- 
pealing both the recent embargo act, and the non-importation act by 
which the importation of British goods had been prohibited ; except so 
far as it affected property belonging to an enemy at the time of its im- 
portation, which was still to be excluded. This repeal Avas enacted in 
pursuance of a recommendation of the president in a special message of 
the 31st of May, stating as reasons, "the mutual interests which the 
United States and the foreign nations in amity with them have in a 
liberal commercial intercourse, and the extensive changes favorable 
thereto which have recently taken place." The " changes" here referred 
to had been produced by recent occurrences in Europe. The allied 
powers had offered peace to France, and negotiations for that object had 
commenced ; but they had been abruptly terminated. The allied armies 
had entered France ; and, as a consequence, Bonaparte's " continental 
system" had been ripped up, and trade with the continent reopened to 
the northern nations of Europe, including Great Britain. This unex- 
pected repeal of French decrees and British orders, had dictated the 
policy recommended by the president. 

On the 4th of April, Mr. Calhoun, from the committee on foreign re- 
lations, made a brief report, accompanied by a bill for the repeal of the 
acts mentioned. The reasons assigned by the report for this measure, 
were, in substance, that our commercial intercourse with the friendly 
powers of the world having been obstructed, the bearing of our restric- 
tive measures had been chiefly confined to our enemies. But there was 
now. a prospect of an extended commerce with the former, which, it was 
presumed, they would find an equal interest and disposition to promote, 
Denmark, all Germany, and Holland, had been liberated from the double 
restraint of internal regulation and external blockades, and depredations 
from a commerce with the United States. Other reasons for the open- 
ing of our ports were, that it would augment the rev£nue, and maintain 
the public credit ; that it would enhance the price of our produce, and 
promote its circulation, in lieu of specie, which had lately become .so 
much the object of speculations tending to embarrass the government. 
An increase of revenue was certainly an important object, as loans could 
not then be effected on the credit of the government without considerable 
sacrifice. 



OFFER TO NEGOTIATE ACCEPTED. 267 

The president also recommended, as an additional safeguard and en- 
oouragement to our growing manufactures, that the double duties on im- 
ports which were to expire at the end of one year after a peace with 
Great Britain, should be prolonged a year ; and that, in favor of our 
moneyed institutions the exportation of specie during the same period 
should be prohibited. A bill for the latter purpose was introduced ; 
but no act was passed in favor of either of these measures. 

Although Great Britain had declined the offer of mediation by Russia, 
an offer to treat of peace, at London, was communicated to our govern- 
ment; or, if some other place should be preferred, Gottenburg, in 
Sweden, was proposed. The offer was readily accepted, and Gottenburg 
was chosen as the place of meeting. And as commissioners, the presi- 
dent nominated (January 14), Henry Clay and Jonathan Russell, to join 
Messrs. Adams and Bayard, whose nomination had been confirmed at the 
preceding session. Mr. Russell was now also confirmed as minister to 
Sweden. On the 8th of February, Mr. Gallatin, still in Europe, was 
again nominated, and was confirmed. The place of meeting, however, 
was changed to Ghent, in Belgium. By the vessel which brought the 
offer to negotiate, news was received of the defeat of Bonaparte at 
Leipsic, which was thought to have had some influence in determining 
the president's acceptance of the offer to negotiate. 

This news from Europe was succeeded, in June, by that of the abdi- 
cation of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons ; and induced 
the president to send new instructions to the commissioners. Instead of 
insisting on security against impressment, as they had been first instructed, 
they might, if peace could not be had upon other terms, waive the ques- 
tion of impressment, and leave it for future negotiation. On the sea, 
where it was apprehended we should be least able to cope with the enemy, 
we had been most successful. Many brilliant victories had been achieved 
by our navy. On the lakes, our fleets had been signally triumphant- 
Yet, a large portion of our Atlantic coast being in a state of blockade, 
our coasting trade was seriously obstructed. The operations of our 
army had not been attended with equal success. They had been such as 
to inspire little hope of effecting the conquest of Canada, which, if it 
were not, as the federalists charged that it was, a motive to the declara- 
tion of war, had since become one of its chief objects. Several inva- 
sions had been made with this view ; but, although in a number of en- 
gagements our arms had been victorious, the acquisition of these British 
provinces was next to hopeless. Besides, the peace of Europe had re- 
leased large portions of the British naval and military forces, which 
were about to be sent o\er to serve in the American war. Perhaps also 
the statf of the national finances and currency contributed to the indis- 



368 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

position of our government to protract a war in which we were, in all 
probability, soon to exchange our offensive position for one of defense ; 
preparations being in progress, as was supposed, for an invasion of the 
United States. 

In the month of August, 1814, a British army of between 4,000 and 
5,000 men under Gen. Ross, ascended the Potomac to Washington, 
burned the capitol and other public buildings, including the president's 
house, and retreated. The president and his secretaries, to avoid capture, 
fled from the city. The want of due preparation to defend the seat of 
Government, was owing to a culpable negligence on the part either of 
the president or of General Armstrong, then secretary of war, or both. 
Though not entirely defenseless, the forces were inadequate to a success- 
ful resistance. 

On the 19th of September, the 13th congress commenced its 3d ses- 
sion. It had been convened by the president before the day (the last Mon- 
day of October) fixed at the last session. In his message, the president 
assigned as a reason for having convened congress before the appointed 
time, " as well that any inadequacy in the existing wants of the treasury 
might be supplied, as that no delay might happen in providing for the 
result of the negotiation, on foot with Great Britain, whether it should 
require arrangements adapted to a return of peace, or further and more 
effective provisions for prosecuting the war." He regarded the repeal 
of the order in council, and the general pacification in Europe, which 
had withdrawn the occasion for impressments from American vessels, as 
favoring the expectations that peace might be reestablished, while the 
rejection of the offer of mediation, the delay in preparing for the negoti- 
ation proposed by Great Britain herself, and the manner in which the 
war was then conducted, indicated a hostility more violent than ever. 
In speaking of the events of the war, he mentions " the splendid victo- 
ries" and " the most unfading laurels" gained by Brown, Scott, and 
Gaines, and " the bold and skillful operations of major-general Jack- 
son." lie noticed the enterprises of the enemy against the metropolis 
and Alexandria, " from both of which his retreats were as precipitate as 
his attempts were bold and fortunate;" and the success of our arms at 
Plattsburg, and our victories on the waters, were made a subject of 
congratulation. 

The president also recommended farther provisions for increasing the 
army and for furnishing the necessary pecuniary supplies. The situa- 
tion of the country called for its greatest efforts. The enemy, he said, 
was powerful in men and money, on the land and on the water. Avail- 
ing himself of fortuitous advantages, he was aiming with his undivided 
force a deadly blow to our growing prosperity, perhaps at our national 
existence. 



HARTFORD CONVENTION. 269 

Measures were accordingly adopted by congress to prosecute the war 
with vigor. The purchase or building of additional war vessels was 
authorized; and provision was made for filling the ranks of the army, 
and for otherwise increasing it. In aid of the treasury, an additional 
loan of three millions was authorized ; duties on carriages, distilled 
spirits, and on other domestic manufactures^ were increased ; and duties 
were laid on household furniture and gold and silver watches. Also a 
direct tax of six millions was laid. 

On the 15th of December, 1814, was held that famed assemblage, the 
Hartford Convention. It was long supposed, and indeed the opinion is 
to some extent still entertained, that the designs of this convention were 
treasonable, or, at 'least, that it contemplated a dissolution of the union. 
As the proceedings of this convention were conducted within closed 
doors, the public have no other means of information respecting their 
character than the account of them as published by order of the conven- 
tion itself, and more recently, (in 1833,) a history of that convention by 
its secretary, Theodore Dwight. In the absence of any other evidence 
against the unlawful designs of that body than the suspicious circum- 
stances under which, and the particular juncture at which, it was held 
we are compelled to rely ior facts on the statements of those who wit- 
nessed its deliberations. 

The general object of the convention was a redress of grievances. 
One ground of complaint was the law passed at the preceding session, 
" making further provision for filling the ranks of the army of the United 
States." This law authorized the recruiting officers to enlist into the 
army any free, effective, able bodied men between the ages of eighteen 
and fifty years. It also repealed the provisions of former acts requiring 
the consent in writing of parents or guardians for the enlistment of 
minors ; provided masters of apprentices who were enlisted should receive 
a portion of the bounty money. Parents were unwilling that their 
children should be taken from under parental care, and placed in the 
contaminating atmosphere of an army. This mode of supplying the 
army by conscription, as it was called, or drafting, they objected to. 
They claimed it as a state right to raise men in their own way ; and 
denied the right of the general government either to prescribe the mode 
of enlistment, or to sever the connection established by law between 
parents and children, or masters and apprentices. 

The secretary in his history of the convention, says : " The situation 
of the New England states was in the highest degree critical and dan- 
gerous. The services of the militia, for two years, had been extremely 
severe ; they were constantly taken from their farms and their ordinary 
occupations, and in addition to all the losses which such a state- must 



270 THE AMERICAN ST.'. TESMAN. 

necessarily produce, they were subjected to the hardships and hazards of 
a camp, and the life of a soldier. In the meantime, the United States 
had withheld all supplies for the maintenance of the militia for the year 
1814, both in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and thus forced upon the 
states the burden of supporting the troops employed in defending their 
coasts from invasion, and their towns from being sacked and pillaged. 
* * * It had become perfectly apparent, that if the New England states 
were rescued from the effects of these calamities at all, it must depend, 
as far as human means were concerned, upon their own exertions, and 
that they could not place the least dependence on the national govern- 
ment. Indeed, they had been repeatedly told that such was the state 
( f things by the national government." 

In October, a resolution was adopted by the legislature of Massachu- 
setts for the appointment of twelve delegates " to meet and confer with 
delegates from the other New England states, or any other, upon the 
subject of their public grievances and concerns ; and upon the best 
means of preserving our resources ; and of defense against the enemy ; 
and to devise and suggest for adoption by those respective states, such 
measures as they may deem expedient ; " &c. A letter was also pre- 
pared and addressed to the governors of the several states, accompanying 
the above resolution, and extending the invitation to their legislatures 
to appoint delegates to the proposed convention, the object of which was 
to devise, if practicable, means of security and defense which may be 
consistent with the preservation of their resources from total ruin, and 
adapted to their local situation, mutual relations and habits, and not 
repugnant to their obligations as members of the union.'* Another ob- 
ject was to procure such amendments of the national constitution as 
should secure to them equal advantage. 

Formal action was taken upon this communication by the legislatures 
of Connecticut and Rhode Island, and delegates were appointed. The 
people of the counties of Grafton and Cheshire, in New Hampshire, and 
those of the county of Windham, in Vermont, also appointed delegates. 
The convention was in session from the 15th of December, 1814, till 
the 5th of January, 1815. George Cabot, of Massachusetts, was chosen 
president, and Theodore Dwight, secretary. Mr. Dwight's name is not 
in the list of members. The following is the list : 

From Massachusetts : George Cabot, Nathan Dane, William Prescott, 
Harrison Gray Otis, Timothy Bigelow, Joshua Thomas, Stephen Long- 
fellow, Jun., Daniel Waldo, Hodijah Baylies. 

From Connecticut : Chauncey Goodrich, John Treadwell, James 
Hillhouse, Zephaniah Swift, Nathaniel Smith, Calvin Goddard, Roger 
Minot Sherman. 



HARTFORD CONVENTION. 271 

From Rhode Island : Daniel Lyman, Samuel Ward, Edward Manton, 
Benjamin Hazard. 

From New Hampshire: Benjamin West, Mills Olcott. 

From Vermont : William Hall, Jun. 

The result of the deliberations of the convention was embodied in a 
report of great length, which concludes with four resolutions and seven 
proposed amendments to the constitution. 

The first resolution recommended to the states the adoption of mea- 
sures to pi'otect their citizens against forcible drafts, conscriptions, or 
impressments not authorized by the constitution. The second^ recom- 
mended application to the general government for consent that the 
states represented in this convention might separately or in concert de- 
feud themselves against the enemy. The third, recommended state laws 
authorizing the governors or commanders-in-chief of their militia to make 
detachments from the same, or to form voluntary corps, and to cause 
them to be well armed and disciplined, and ready for service, &c. The 
fourth, recommended to the states represented in that convention certain 
amendments to be by them proposed for adoption by the state legisla- 
4;ures, &e. The amendments were as follows : 

1. Excluding slaves from the basis on which representatives and 
direct taxes are apportioned. 

2. Requiring, in the admission of new states, the concurrence of two- 
thirds of both houses. 

3. Prohibiting congress from laying an embargo for more than sixty 
days. 

4. Prohibiting congress from interdicting commercial intercourse with 
foreign nations, without the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses. 

5. Requiring the concurrence of two-thirds to declare war, or author- 
ize acts of hostility against any foreign nation, except in defense and in 
cases of actual invasion. 

6. Making ineligible to any civil office under the general government, 
any person thereafter naturalized. 

7. The president to be eligible only for a single term ; and not to be 
chosen two terms in succession from the same state. 

Then followed a resolution, that, if the application recommended in 
the second of the foregoing resolutions should be unsuccessful, and peace 
should not be concluded, and the defense of these states should be 
neglected as it had been since the commencement of the war, it would 
be expedient for the legislatures of the several states to appoint dele- 
gates to another convention, to meet at Boston on the third Tuesday 
of June next, with such powers and instructions as the exigency of a 
crisis so momentous might require. 



272 THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

A committee was also appointed, authorized to call another meeting 
of this convention before that time, if it should be deemed necessary. 

• When, in 1819, the original journal of the proceedings of this con- 
vention was placed in the oflSce of the secretary of state in Boston, it 
was duly certified by the president, Mr. Cabot, to be a faithful and 
complete record of all the motions, resolutions, votes, and proceedings 
of that convention. 

The state of the national finances, as presented to congress at its 
meeting in September, 1814, by the new secretary of the treasury, Mr. 
Campbell, was by no means gratifying. Stock had been issued for 
about half of the twenty-five million loan authorized at the preceding 
session, and only about 80 per cent, had been received for the same ; 
that is to say, the government was obliged to sell its obligations on 
interest at six per cent, at a discount of 20 per cent. About one-half 
of eight millions of treasury notes outstanding, together with other 
sums, amounting in the aggregate to about twenty-five millions, would 
be drawn for upon the treasury within the year; of which all but about 
nine millions was to be provided for. 

In addition to the loan of three millions, and the duties above men- 
tioned, an act, in further aid of the treasury, was passed, for the issue 
of treasury notes in lieu of such portion of the twenty-five million loan 
authorized at the preceding session, and the three million loan autho- 
rized at the present session, as had not yet been obtained ; and for the 
further sum of three millions to defray the expenses of the war depart- 
ment for the present year. 

Most of the banks, except those of New England, bad suspended 
specie payments, caused, in part, by the drain of specie to pay for 
foreign goods, chiefly British, which had been brought into the country 
clandestinely, and under false colors. Mr. Campbell having resigned 
Immediately after making his report to congress, Alexander Dallas, of 
Philadelphia, was appointed in his place. Mr. Dallas proposed a plan 
of a huge national bank, with a capital oi fifty millions, to consist of five 
millions of specie, and the residue of government stock ; the govern- 
ment itself to subscribe two-fifths of its capital, to appoint a part of 
the directors, and to have power to authorize a suspension of specie 
payments ! Another of its provisions required it to loan to the govern- 
ment thirty millions. This scheme of a bank — so necessary was some 
institution of the kind considered at that particular crisis — received 
the favor of the administration. So obnoxious, however, was it to Mr. 
Calhoun and some other republicans, that he proposed a counter pro- 
ject : a bank with a capital of fifty millions, to consist of six millions 
of specie, and forty-four millions of treasury notes ; the government to 



BANK PROJECTS. 27^ 

hold no stock in the hank no control in its direction, nor any legal 
right to demand loans from the hank. This plan was carried in the 
nouse by a large majority, the federalists voting in favor of it. 

The house having subsequently requested Mr. Dallas's opinion as to 
the effect of the issue of a large amount of treasury notes receivable in 
subscriptions to the bank, he gave it as his opinion, that it would have 
au injurious effect upon the credit of the government, and upon the 
prospects of a loan for 1815; and also that it would be difficult, if not 
impossible, to get so large an amount as forty-four millions of such 
notes into circulation. After this letter was read, the question was 
taken on the third reading of the bill, and lost, 45 to 1 07 ; the feder- 
alists now voting against the bill. 

A bill on the plan of Dallas was then introduced into the senate, and 
passed. In the house it was violently opposed, and, having undergone 
some amendments, and the question being taken on its passage, the vote 
stood, 81 in its favor, and 80 against it. The speaker, Mr. Cheves, 
availed himself of his right to vote in two cases; and, after having 
given his reasons for opposing the bill, considering it a " dangerous, 
unexampled, and desperate resort," he voted in the negative, producing 
a tie; and then declared the bill to be lost. A reconsideration was then 
moved and carried ; and a compromise bill was reported by a select 
committee, and adopted. The bank was to have a capital of thirty 
millions; to be composed of specie, five millions; of treasury notes 
fifteen millions ; and of government stock, five millions. There was to 
be no compulsory loan to the government, nor provision to suspend 
specie payments. After an ineffectual attempt on the part of the senate 
to substitute a clause authorizing the president to suspend — the house 
refusing to concur — the bill passed, but was vetoed by the president, 
January 30, 1815. 

No objection was made by the president to the bill on the ground of 
the want of constitutional authority to establish a bank; the validity 
of such an institution having been repeatedly recognized by " acts of 
the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government, 
accompanied by indications, in different modes, of a concurrence of the 
general will of the nation." But, he said, "the proposed bank does not 
appear to be calculated to answer the purposes of reviving the public 
credit, of providing a national medium of circulation, and of aiding the 
treasury by facilitating the indispensable anticipations of the revenue, 
and by affording to the public more durable loans." 

Still another bank bill, on the principle of Dallas's plan, was origi- 
nated in the senate, by Mr. Barbour, which passed that body, but was 
indefinitely postponed in the house by a majority of one vote. 

18 



274 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

PEACE WITH GK.EAT BRITAIN. GENERAL JACKSON AND MARTIAL LAW AT 

NEW ORLEANS. PROTECTIVE TARIFF. BANK.— COMPENSATION, NAVI- 
GATION, NEUTRALITY, AND OTHER ACTS. 

The first account of the progress of negotiations at Ghent, was 
unfavorable. The British commissioners, lord Gambier, Henry Goul- 
burn, and William Adams, did not arrive until the 6th of August. 
Dispatches dated the 12th, were communicated to congress the 10th of 
October. As an indispensable condition of a treaty of peace, the British 
commissioners were instructed to require, that their Indian allies should 
be included in the pacification, and that a definite boundary between them 
and the United States should be settled ; with the intention, on their 
part, that the Indian territories should be a barrier between the United 
States and Canada : and the United States were to be prohibited from 
purchasing those territories. Extravagant as this demand was, it was 
not less so than another, designed to strengthen this barrier — our relin- 
quishment of the right to maintain military posts on the lakes, or to 
keep armed vessels on them. 

Other subjects were mentioned which they thought proper to discuss ; 
none of which, however, were to be made a sine qua non of a treaty. 
One was the forcible seizure of mariners from on board merchant ships 
on the high seas, and, in connection with it, the right of the king of 
Great Britain to the allegiance of all his native subjects. Another was 
the revision of the boundary line between the United States and the 
British territories. And another was the fisheries. It was intended to 
refuse the privilege formerly granted by treaty, of fishing within the ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction of Great Britain, without an equivalent. 

The American commissioners stated that, upon the subjects of impress- 
ment and boundary they were authorized to treat ; but as the Indian 
and fishery questions had not been in dispute between the two govern- 
ments, they had not been anticipated by our government, and, conse- 
quently, in relation to them they had no instructions. Our commission- 
ers mentioned as additional subjects suitable for discussion: 1. A defi- 
nition of blockade, and of other neutral and belligerent rights. 2. Cer- 
tain claims of indemnity to individuals for captures and seizures, pre- 
ceding and subsequent to the war ; besides several others, to be con- 
sidered in case of a propitious termination of the present conferences. 

Th? extravagant and even humiliating terms which were exacted by 



PEACE WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 275 

the British government, and to which no one could believe our govern- 
ment would ever accede, nearly extinguished all hope of peace, and 
served to stimulate congress to a more effective preparation for the 
prosecution of the war. After a suspense of several months, on the 
nth of February, 1815, a vessel arrived at New York bringing the 
news of PEACE, and bearing the treaty itself, ratified by the British gov- 
ernment. The intelligence spread rapidly throughout the country, and 
was everywhere received with exclamations of joy. It was ratified at 
Washington the 1 7th of February, and proclaimed the next day by the 
president. 

The correspondence between the American and British commissioners, 
has been justly regarded as highly creditable to the former, being charac- 
terized by firmness, moderation and ability. As to the comparative 
talent of the antagonist diplomatists, the results of the negotiation do 
not furnish infallible evidence. All things considered, however, there 
was no just ground of complaint, in respect to the management of the 
American side of the controversy. It is indeed a singular fact, that not 
one of the declared objects of the war, formed an essential topic of dis- 
cussion in this negotiation of peace : the progress and result of which, 
as drawn from the correspondence, is thus summarily stated by Hildreth : 

" The weakness of the British possessions in North America ; the 
necessity of some barrier against that ambitious spirit of annexation 
exhibited in the acquisition of Louisiana, the threatened conquest of 
Canada, and the constant curtailment of the Indian territory : these had 
been stated by the British commissioners, at the opening of the negotia- 
tions, as grounds of their claim for an assignment to the British Indian 
allies of a permanent neutral territory, with a prohibition to the United 
States to establish fortresses or keep ships on the great lakes. The 
American commissioners had protested, in reply, against this attempted 
interference with the Indians, as a thing which the policy of Great 
Britain had never permitted in her own case, and as contrary to the 
assurances originally given of a disposition to treat on terms of perfect 
reciprocity. They denied, with emphasis, that the conquest of Canada 
had ever been a declared object of the war ; and they dwelt on the 
humane disposition of their government toward the Indians, protest- 
ing, also, against the British employment of Indian auxiliaries. Finally, 
after some pretty sharp controversy, the British commissioners had 
agreed to be content with a neutral stipulation for peace with the Indians, 
the tribes still actively engaged in hostilities at the close of the war to be 
restored to the same position in which they had stood at its commence- 
ment. This question disposed of by the provisional assent of the 
American commissioners, the next related to boundaries. The false idea 



276 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

that the Mississippi had its source north of the 49th degree of latitude^ 
had rendered nugatory the provision of the treaty of 1783 as to the 
northern boundary of the United States west of the Lake of the Woods. 
That boundary, indeed, since the acquisition of Louisiana, remained to 
be extended far to the west, the United States claiming, under that ces- 
sion, even to the Pacific Ocean. The provision for a boundary on the 
northeast, so far as related to the territory between the head of the St. 
Croix and the head of the Connecticut, had likewise failed, so the British 
commissioners contended, from similar geographical ignorance ; and, as 
the basis of a new arrangement, they had suggested that each party 
should retain what he held at the signing of the treaty. To this the 
American commissioners had refused to agree. So the negotiation had 
stood by the latest accounts previous to the arrival of the treaty of 
peace. 

" The treaty, as signed, provided for the mutual restoration of all 
conquered territory, and for the appointment of three commissions ; 
one to settle the title to the islands in Passamaquaddy Bay, another to 
make out the north-eastern boundary as far as the St. Lawrence, and a 
third to run the line through the St. Lawrence and the lakes to the 
Lake of the Woods. In case of disagreement in either commission, 
the point in dispute was to be referred to some friendly power. No 
provision was made as to the boundary west of the Lake of the Woods 
nor as to the fishinji on the shores of British America. The British 
commissioners refused to accept, in return for this right of fishing, a 
modified renewal of the article for the navigation of the Mississippi, which, 
in their view, was also terminated by the war. The result, therefore, 
was, that, instead of leaving the parties where they began, the war took 
away from Great Britain a nominal right, never used, of navigating the 
Mississippi, and from the New England fishermen a valuable right, 
hitherto used from the earliest times, of catching and curing fish on the 
shores of the Grulf of St. Lawrence, the loss of which still continues 
to be felt. By some adroit management, the English commissioners 
were induced to admit into the treaty a clause copied from that of 1783, 
with the history of which probably they were not familiar, against 
carrying away " any negroes or other property." The only remaining 
article related to the slave trade, for the suppression of which, as irre- 
concilable with the principles of humanity and justice, both parties 
promised to use their best endeavors." 

An inquiry here naturally suggests itself. As, after the revocation 
of the British orders in council, impressment was the only grievance to 
be redressed by war; and as that question was subsequently waived 
by our government in the negotiation ; what was gained by the war ? 



MARTIAL LAW AT NEW ORLEANS. 277 

It has been considered as no small point gained, that ample evidence 
has been given to Great Britain of our capacity successfully to resist 
her power, especially upon the ocean, where she had long claimed a vast 
superiority ; and that a guaranty had thus been furnished against future 
aggression. It is questionable, however, if the result could have been 
known, or if the unbiased counsels of our older statesmen had prevailed, 
whether war would have been declared. Jefferson, Madison, Gallatin, 
Macon, and others, were of a pacific disposition. The leading men of 
the administration were known to have given a reluctant sanction to the 
war project; but they found themselves under a kind of necessity to 
yield to the impulsive young politicians, Calhoun, Clay, and a number of 
others, who, it was suspected, were striving to turn the popular preju- 
dice against Great Britain, to their own political advantage. Whether 
the nation has ever obtained an equivalent for the 30,000 lives and the 
hundred millions of money expended; for the loss of property and 
several years of prosperous commerce ; for the depravation of the public 
morals, and the train of other evils inseparable from a state of war ; is 
a question which at least admits of a reasonable doubt. 

On the 20th of December, Gen. Jackson proclaimed martial law at 
New Orleans. On the 5th of March, an order was issued, stating, that 
attempts had been made, under specious pretexts, to diminish our force 
by seducing French inhabitants from their duty ; and that he had, on 
the 28th ultimo, ordered all French subjects having certificates of the 
French consul, to repair to the interior, not short of Baton Rouge, until 
the enemy had left our waters, or until the restoration of peace. And 
he now enjoined all officers and soldiers to give the earliest intelligence 
of all mutiny or sedition, and to arrest all concei-ned therein, and to 
confine them for trial agreeably to the rules and articles of war. On the 
7th he inclosed in a letter to " Mr. Le Clerc, printer," a circular from 
the postmaster general, which, he said, he believed to be genuine, and 
which placed the pleasing intelligence of peace almost beyond a doubt. 
Martial law, however, was still continued, for the alleged reason that he 
had not received official advice of the ratification of the treaty of peace. 
No farther danger from the enemy being generally apprehended, the con- 
tinuance of martial law, which began to be complained of, was made the 
subject of animadversion by a writer in one of the newspapers, whose 
name the publisher was compelled to disclose, and who proved to be a 
member of the legislature, named Louallier, who was, by order of Gen. 
Jackson, committed to prison to be tried by a military court for hia life, 
on a charge of mutiny. 

On application to judge Hall, of the United States district court, a 
writ of habeas corpus was obtained in behalf of the prisoner ; whereupon 



278 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the judge was himself arrested and sent out of the city. The district 
attorney having applied to a state judge for a writ of habeas corpus to 
release judge Hall, he also was imprisoned. 

In his answer to a complimentary address of the city battalion of uni- 
form companies, the general took occasion to vindicate his resistance to 
the civil authority. He said : " In declaring martial law, his object, 
and his only object, was to embody the whole resources of the country 
for its defense. That law, while it existed, necessarily suspended all 
rights and privileges inconsistent with its provisions." He maintained 
the necessity of continuing martial law, in order to prevent his ranks 
from being " thinned by desertion, and his whole army broken to pieces 
by mutiny, while yet a powerful force of the enemy remained on the 
coast, and within a few hours sail of the city." It was not until he dis- 
covered that the civil power stood no longer in need of the military for 
its support, that he restored to it its usual functions ; and the restora- 
tion was not delayed a moment after that period had arrived. 

After the militia had been dismissed, and the judge had returned to 
the city, he ordered the general to appear before him to show cause why 
an attachment should not be issued against him for contempt in refusing 
obedience to the writ of habeas corpus, and for imprisoning the judge. 
The general appeared, accordingly, and tendered to the court, in his de- 
fense, a paper protesting against the proceedings of the court as " illegal, 
unconstitutional, and informal," and reserving to himself the benefit of 
his exceptions to them. This list of exceptions was followed by a state- 
ment of the reasons for instituting and keeping up martial law ; among 
which were letters from the governor of Louisiana, and information de- 
rived from other sources, after his arrival at that place, putting him on 
his guard against a portion of thei inhabitants, the legislature, and foreign 
emissaries ; many of the people being disaflFected foreigners, and unwor- 
thy of confidence. The militia had been represented as insubordinate, 
encouraged in their disobedience by the legislature, which was character- 
ized as politically rotten, and the whole state dependent mainly on the 
regular troops and the militia from other states. These facts justified, 
in his view, the institution of martial law. 

In regard to its continuance after the first information of peace, he 
said, the numbers of the enemy still quadrupled all the regular forces 
which he could command ; and they might renew their attacks. If he 
had revoked his proclamation, or ceased to act under it, the fatal security 
into which they had been lulled would have destroyed all discipline, dis- 
solved all his forces, and left him without any means of defense against 
an enemy instructed by traitors within our own bosom of the time and 
place at which an attack might be safely made. He thought the peace 



MARTIAL LAW AT NEW ORLEANS. 279 

probable, but not certain. If certain, a few days would bring the official 
advice of it ; and he thought it better to submit during these few days 
to the restraints imposed, than to put the country at risk on an uncertain 
oontingency. 

The reading of the defense was objected to by the opposite counsel. 
The judge admitted that part of the paper which related to the legal 
points of defense, but debarred the reading of that which was intended 
as a vindication of his conduct. After considerable discussion, the court 
adjourned to the next day, (March 28,) when the judge read an opinion 
which he had drawn up, containing certain points of objection in regard 
to martial law and the suspension of civil jurisprudence, and declaring 
that the written defense could not be legally admitted. After the hear- 
ing, the judge decided that an attachment should issue, returnable on 
the 3 1st, when the general appeared without his counsel. Being told by 
the judge that there were interrogatories to be propounded to him, he 
replied that he would not answer them ; saying, that he had offered a 
defense which had been refused ; that he now appeared to receive the 
sentence of the court, and had nothing further to add. During the read- 
ing of his opinion, the judge was several times interrupted by the general, 
who at one time said : " Sir, state facts, and confine yourself to them : 
since my defense has been precluded, let not censure constitute a part 
of this sought for punishment." The judge sentenced him to pay a fine 
of $1,000, for which he drew a check on the spot, which was received in 
discharge. 

On leaving the court-house, he was received by the multitude outside, 
with acclamation, and seated in a coach, which was drawn by the people 
to a public house, where he addressed them in a short speech. The 
amount of the fine was immediately raised by subscription, and paid 
over, and the check returned without having been presented. It has 
been said that he declined to receive the money, which is probable, from 
the fact that, in 1844, by an act of congress, the thousand dollars, with 
interest, was refunded. 

Peace having been restored, the government very naturally directed 
its attention to the adaptation of its policy to our altered condition. The 
general peace of Europe, no less than the restoration of peace between 
the United States and Great Britain, demanded a change in our com- 
mercial regulations. Permanent provision was to be made for the pay- 
ment of the public debt, which had been increased by the war to about 
$120,000,000. Importations were large, and must rapidly augment our 
indebtedness to foreigners — the more so as the peace of Europe would 
greatly lessen the demand for our agricultural products, and seriously 
afiect our carrying trade. A similar state of things had not existed 
since the establishment of the government under the constitution. 



280 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Therefore, at the next session of congress, in December, 1815, the 
president recommended a " tariff on manufactures," with reference, both 
to the revenue and to manufacturing industry. The views of Mr. 
Madison on this subject were thus stated : 

" In adjusting the duties on imports to the object of revenue, the in- 
fluence of the tariff on manufactures will necessarily present itself for con- 
sideration. However wise the theory may be which leaves to the saga- 
city and interest of individuals the application of their industry and re- 
sources, there are in this, as in other cases, exception? to the general 
rule. Besides the condition which the theory itself implies of a recipro- 
cal adoption by other nations, experience teaches that so many circum- 
stances must occur in introducing and maturing manufacturing estab- 
lishments, especially of the more complicated kinds, that a country may 
remain long without them, although sufficiently advanced, and in some 
respects even peculiarly fitted for carrying them on with success. Under 
circumstances giving a powerful impulse to manufacturing industry, it 
has made among us a progress, and exhibited an efficiency, which justify 
the belief that with a protection not more than is due to the enterprising 
citizens whose interests are now at stake, it will become at an early day 
not only safe against occasional competitions from abroad, but a source 
of domestic wealth and even of external commerce. In selecting the 
branches more especially entitled to the public patronage, a preference is 
obviously claimed by such as will relieve the United States from a de- 
pendence on foreign supplies, ever subject to casual failures, for articles 
necessary for the public defense, or connected with the primary wants of 
individuals. It will be an additional recommendation of particular 
manufactures, where the materials for them are extensively drawn from 
our agriculture, and consequently impart and insure to that great fund 
of national prosperity and independence an encouragement which can 
not fail to be rewarded." 

Mr. Dallas, secretary of the treasury, reported to congress a tariff of 
duties on i nports, which, with some modification, became a law. This 
may be regarded as the commencement of what is called the protective 
system ; which, though not without essential modifications, has been the 
established policy of the government to the present time. The duties 
imposed by Great Britain upon cotton, rendered the home manufacture 
of that article an object of great importance to the cotton producing 
states. Hence, Calhoun and Lowndes, the leading members from South 
Carolina, were among the most zealous advocates of the measure. Mr. 
Clay, also, then as ever afterward, took a strong stand in favor of that 
system ; while Webster aud most of the members from the New Eng- 
land states, with John Randolph, took ground against it 



PXiOTECTlVE TAIUFF. BANK. 281 

This questiou affords a striking illustration of the eflfect of personal 
interest, real or imaginary, pecuniary or political, upon the opinions of 
men. The change of position on this subject is somewhat remarkable. 
The report, in 1792, of Hamilton, the great federal leader, whose 
schemes of finance were then repudiated by his political opponents, now 
furnished the democrats with arguments, while the federalists planted 
themselves on the doctrines of free trade. The positions in which indi- 
viduals stood in 1 8 1 6, were, a few years afterward, entirely reversed- 
each still advocating his new position on the general principle^ either of 
free trade or protection. The mercantile class were generally opposed 
to the system. 

The duties imposed by this act upon the most important articles, 
ranged from about twenty to thirty-five per cent. On coarse cottons, 
costing twenty-five cents or less, which must all be deemed to have cost 
twenty-five cents the square yard, the duty was twenty-five per cent. 
On woolens twenty-five per cent. On manufactures of hemp, iron, steel, 
brass, copper, &c., twenty per cent. On bar iron, $1 50 per hundred 
weight. On nails, spikes and bolts, 4 cents per pound. On window 
glass, from $2 50 to $3 25 per hundred feet. On hemp, $1 50 per 
hundred weight. On spirits, from 38 to 75 cents per gallon. The list 
of articles was numerous ; and the duties varied according to the 
measure of the ability of the country to supply the demand ; those of 
which a full supply of the domestic article could be furnished being 
rated higher than those the demand for which could be supplied only in 
part, or could not be produced at all. The internal taxes, or duties on 
domestic manufactures laid during the war, were either repealed or 
materially reduced. 

Application for the rechartering of the first bank, had been made in 
1810, and a favorable report made to congress by Mr. Gallatin, secretary 
of the treasury ; but at too late a period of the session to be acted upon. 
The application was renewed the next year; a bill was introduced into 
each house ; and after an arduous contest, the bills in both houses were 
lost ; that of the house having been indefinitely postponed, 65 to 64 ; 
and that of the senate having had its enacting clause struck out by the 
casting vote of the vice-president, George Clinton, who was opposed to 
the bill, on the ground of its supposed unconstitutionality. It was sup- 
ported in the senate by Mr. Crawford and Mr. Giles ; the latter, how- 
ever, voting against it in obedience to instructions of the legislature of 
his state, (Virginia.) It was opposed by Mr. Clay, then in the senate, 
Mr. Bayard, and others. 

Many of the leading statesmen had changed their views on the subject 
of a national bank since 1811; among whom was Mr. Clay, now (1816). 



282 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

a member of the house and again its speaker, who made i, very able 
speech in its favor. It was believed that a bank was necessary to restore 
the currency to its former healthy state, and to facilitate the financial 
operations of the government. The vote on 1 '-k^ final passage of the bill 
in the house, was 80 to 71. It became a law on the 10th of April. Its 
capital was $35,000,000 ; of which one-fifth (7,000,000,) was to be sub- 
scribed by the government. Of the sums subscribed, one-fifth was to be 
paid in specie. It was entitled to the deposit of the public moneys, and 
was required to disburse them in any part of the union where they might 
be wanted, without charge to the government. It was also to pay 
$1,500,000 as a bonus for its charter. Of the twenty-five directors, five 
were to be appointed by the president with the consent of the senate. 
The deposits were removable by the secretary of the treasury for suffi- 
cient reasons, to be laid before congress. The term of its charter was 
twenty years. 

The people of the territory of Indiana were authorized (April, 1816) 
to form a constitution and state government, preparatory to admission 
into the union. 

A joint resolution was passed, requiring the secretary of the treasury 
to cause, as soon as might be, all taxes, duties, and public dues to be 
collected and paid in specie, or notes of specie-paying banks, or treasury 
notes. The object of this requisition was to eff"ect a resumption of specie 
payments by the banks, which took place at the commencement of the 
next year. 

The daily compensation of members of congress, which was six dol- 
lars, was changed at this session to an annual salary of $1,500, irrespec- 
tive of the length of the sessions ; the usual mileage to be continued. 
Such was the popular clamor against this bill, as to induce its re- 
peal at the next session, (1817) though not to take effect until after the 
expiration of the session. The act contained a proviso, that no former 
act should be revived by the repeal. Not agreeing upon a rate of com- 
pensation after the end of their own term, the matter was left to be dis- 
posed of bj' their successors. 

A caucus was held on the 16th of March, by the republican members, 
to nominate a successor to Mr. Madison. Mr. Clay moved a resolution 
that it was inexpedient to make, in caucus, any recommendation to the 
people of candidates for president and vice-president, which was nega- 
tived ; as was another by John W. Taylor, of New York, declaring the 
practice of making such nominations by members of congress, to be in- 
expedient. A ballot having been taken, it appeared that James Monroe 
had 65 votes, and William H. Crawford 58. Daniel D. Tompkins, 
governor of New York, had 85 votes for vice-president, and Simon 



NAVIGATION NEUTRALITY, AND OTHER ACTS. 28d 

Snyder, governor of Pennsylvania, 30. Messrs. Monroe and TOmpkins 
were declared nominated without opposition. 

The 14th congress commenced its 2d session December 2, 1816, which 
terminated with Mr. Madison's presidential term, the 3d of March, 
1817. 

On the 11th of December, the people of Indiana, having, in conform- 
ity with the act of congress at the preceding session, formed a state con- 
stitution which was accepted by congress, that territory was, by a joint 
resolution, admitted as a state into the union. By an act of March 1, 
1817, the people of the western part of the territory of Mississippi, 
were authorized to form a constitution and state government with a view 
to admission. And by another act, the eastern part of the territory was 
to constitute a separate territory, called Alabama. 

Among the most important acts of this session, was " an act concern- 
ing the navigation of the United States." In consequence of the discrimi- 
nations made by certain European nations since the peace in favor of 
their own navigation, a similar policy was deemed necessary on the part 
of the United States. An act was therefore passed, restricting import- 
ations to vessels of the United States, and to foreign vessels owned in 
the country of which the goods were the product or manufacture: the 
regulation to apply only to the vessels of those nations which had 
adopted a similar regulation. For a violation of the law, vessel and 
goods were forfeited. The coasting trade was restricted to vessels 
owned wholly by our own citizens, under a penalty of the forfeiture of the 
goods. And to encourage the employment of American seamen, coast- 
ing vessels not having crews of whom three-fourths were Americans, 
were to be subject to a duty of fifty cents a ton, instead of six cents, as 
in other cases. 

By an act to provide for the redemption of the public debt, $10,000,000 
from the proceeds of the duties on imports and tonnage, of internal du- 
ties, and of the public land sales, was to be appropriated annually to 
the sinking fund. 

Spain having complained that aid had been given by citizens of the 
United States to the insurrections in Texas and Mexico, a general law 
was passed against fitting out vessels within the jurisdiction of the Uni- 
ted States, to aid or cooperate in any warlike measure against- any 
friendly power; imposing as a penalty for its violation, a fine not 
exceeding $10,000, and imprisonment not exceeding ten years. 

The president had, in his annual message to congress at the preceding 
session, recommended to the consideration of congress the subject of 
internal improvement. A bill creating a fund for this purpose, to con- 
sist of the bonus to be paid by the bank, and the dividends of the gov- 



284 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

eiument stock in the same, was passed, in the house, 86 to 84 ; in tho 
senate 20 to 15; but was vetoed by the president, for the reason that 
appropriations for that object were unauthorized by the constitution. 
The leader in this measure was ]^r* Calhoun, then a latitudinarian in 
his views of constitutional power. 



CHAPTER XX. 

ELECTION AND INAUGURATION OF MR. MONROE, CORRESPONDENCE WITH 

GEN. JACKSON. CABINET APPOINTMENTS. PRESIDENT'S TOUR. 

At the presidential election in 1816, there was little opposition to the 
republican candidates. Of the votes of the presidential electors, Mr. 
Monroe and Mr. Tompkins received each 183; and 34 were given to 
Rufus King, the federal candidate for president, and about the same 
number were scattered upon a number of persons for vice-president. 

Mr. Monroe was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1817, with the 
usual ceremonies. A prominent subject of his inaugural address was 
the national defense. With respect to securing the country against 
foreign dangers, his ideas seem to have gone beyond those of his two 
immediate predecessors. " To put our extensive coast in such a state 
of defense as to secure our cities and interior from invasion, " he said, 
" would be attended with expense ; but the work, when finished, would 
be permanent ; and it was fair to presume, that a single campaign of 
invasion by a naval force superior to our own, aided by a few thousand 
land troops, would expose us to a greater expense, without taking into 
the estimate the loss of property and distress of our citizens, than 
would be sufficient for the great work." " Our land and naval forces 
should be adequate to the necessary purposes ; the former to garrison 
our fortifications, and to meet the first invasions of a foreign foe; the 
latter, retained within the limits proper to a state of peace, might aid 
in maintaining the neutrality of the United States, with dignity in the 
wars of other powers, and in saving the property of their citizens from 
spoliation." 

Respecting the encouragement of home industry, he said : 

" Our manufactures will likewise require the systematic and fostering 
care of the government. Possessing, as we do, all the raw materials, 
the fruit of our own soil and industry, we ought not to depend in the 
degree we have done on supplies from other countries. While we are 
thus dependent, the sudden event of war, unsought and unexpected, cau 



MR. Monroe's inaugural. 285 

not fail to plunge us into the most serious diflSiculties. It is important, 
too, that the capital which nourishes our manufactures should be domes 
tic, as its influence in that case, instead of exhausting, as it may do in 
foreign hands, would be felt advantageously on agriculture, and every 
other branch of industry. Equally important is it to provide at home 
a market for our raw materials, as by extending the competition, it will 
enhance the price and protect the cultivator against the casualties inci- 
dent to foreign markets." 

As the best means of preserving our liberties, he said, " let us pro- 
mote intelligence among the people. It is only when the people become 
ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they 
are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. The people themselves 
become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin." 

Mr. Monroe entered upon the duties of his office under auspicious 
circumstances. The nation was at peace ; and, although negotiations 
with Spain were still pending, there was no apprehension of an interrup- 
tion of our amicable relations with any foreign power. The return of 
peace had been succeeded by a political calm. The federal party as an 
organization, was defunct, beyond the hope of resuscitation : and not 
the least cheering reflection was, that his administration would escape 
the embarrassments of a powerful party opposition which had been 
experienced by all former administrations. Says the address : " Equally 
gratifying is it to witness the increased harmony of opinion which per- 
vades the union. Discord does not belong to our system. Union is 
recommended, as well by the free and benign principles of our govern- 
ment, extending its blessings to every individual, as by the other eminent 
advantages attending it." He adds : " To promote this harmony in 
accordance with the principles of our government, and in a manner to 
give them the most complete efi'ect, and to advance, in all other respects, 
the best interests of our country, will be the object of my constant and 
zealous exertions." 

From the liberal and conciliatory spirit indicated by the inaugural 
address toward those who diff'ered from him in their political opinions, it 
was inferred by some, that, in the bestowment of patronage, Mr. Monroe 
intended to make no discrimination. That such was not his intention, 
however, appears both from his practice and from his correspondence 
with Gen. Jackson, which, though it took place at that time, was not 
published until many years afterward. Immediately after the presiden- 
tial election, and before the electors had yet cast their votes. Gen. Jack- 
son, in a letter to Mr. Monroe, recommended the course above suggested. 
As the advice contained in that letter appears to have been prompted by 
a truly magnanimous and patriotic sentiment, which should be the guide 



286 THE. AMERICAN STATESMAN." ' 

^f every statesman, we transcribe the paragraph relating directly to this 
subject : 

" Your happiness and the nation's welfare materially depend upon the 
selections which are to be made to fill the heads of departments. * * * 
Every thing depends on the selection of your ministry. In every selec- 
tion, party and party feelings should be avoided. Now is the time to 
exterminate that monster called party spirit. By selecting characters 
most conspicuous for their probity, virtue, capacity, and firmness, with- 
out any regard to party, you will go far to, if not entirely, eradicate those 
feelings, which, on former occasions, threw so many obstacles in the way 
of government ; and perhaps have the pleasure and honor of uniting a 
people heretofore politically divided. The chief magistrate of a great 
and powerful nation should never indulge in party feelings. His conduct 
should be liberal and disinterested, always bearing in mind that he acts 
for the whole and not a part of the community. By this course you will 
exalt the national character, and acquire for yourself a name as imperish- 
able as monumental marble. Consult no party in your choice, pursue 
the dictates of that unerring judgment which has so long and so often 
benefited our country, and rendered conspicuous its rulers. These are 
the sentiments of a friend ; they are the feelings, if I know my own 
heart, of an undissembled patriot." 

The time, however, had not yet come, in the opinion of Mr. Monroe, when 
it was politic to break down the partition wall between the parties. His 
views are thus expressed in his answer of December 14, 1816: "The 
election has been made by the republican party, supposing that it has 
succeeded, and of a person known to be devoted to that cause. How 
shall he act ? How organize the administration, so far as dependent on 
him, when in that station ? How fill the vacancies existing at the 
time ? 

" The distinction between republicans and federalists, even in the 
southern, and middle, and western states, has not been fully done away. 
To give eff'ect to free government, and secure it from future danger, ought 
not its decided friends, who stood firm in the day of trial, to be principally 
relied on ? Would not the association of any of their opponents in the 
administration, itself wound their feelings, or, at least, of very many of 
them, to the injury of the republican cause ? Might it not be considered, 
by the other party, as an ofi'er of compromise with them, which would 
lessen the ignominy due to the counsels which produced the Hartford 
convention, and thereby have a tendency to revive that party on its 
former principles ? My impression is, that the administration should 
rest strongly on the republican party, indulging toward the other a spirit 
of moderation, and evincing a desire to discriminate between its mem- 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH GEN. JACKSON. 287 

bers, and to bring the whole into the republican fold, as quietly as possi- 
ble. Many men, very distinguished for their talents, are of opinion that 
the existence of the federal party is necessary to keep union and order 
in the republican ranks ; that is, that free government can not exist vyith- 
out parties. This is not my opinion. The first object is to save the 
cause, which can be done by those who are devoted to it only, and of 
course by keeping them together ; or, in other words, by not disgusting 
them by too hasty an act of liberality to the other party, thereby break- 
ing the generous spirit of the republican party, and keeping alive that 
of the federal party. The second is, to prevent the reorganization and 
revival of the federal party, which, if my hypothesis is true, that the 
existence of party is not necessary to a free government, and the other 
opinion which I have advanced is well founded, that the great body of 
the federal party are republican, will not be found impracticable. To 
accomplish both objects, and thereby exterminate all party divisions 
in our country, and give new strength and stability to our govern- 
ment, is a great undertaking, ijot easily executed. I am, nevertheless, 
decidedly of opinion that it may be done ; and should the experiment 
fail, I shall conclude that its failure was imputable- more to the want of 
a correct knowledge of all circumstances claiming attention, and of sound 
judgment in the measures adopted, than to any other cause. I agree, 
I think, perfectly with you, in the grand object, that moderation should 
be shown to the federal party, and even a generous policy be adopted 
toward it ; the only difference between us seems to be, how far shall that 
spirit be indulged in the outset; and it is to make you thoroughly 
acquainted with my views on this highly important subject, that I have 
written you so freely upon it." 

The correspondence between these two gentlemen was continued, 
taking, however, a different turn. Gren. Jackson, in a letter of the 6th 
of January, 1817, approved Mr. Monroe's exposition of " the rise, pro- 
gress, and policy of the federalists;" and said: " Had I commanded the 
military department where the Hartford convention met, if it had 
been the last act of my life, I should have punished the three prin- 
cipal leaders of the party. I am certain an independent court-martial 
would have condemned them under the 2d section of the act estab- 
lishing rules and regulations for the government of the army of the 
United States." These men, he said, although called federalists, were 
really monarchists and traitors. But there were those called federalists 
who were honest, virtuous, and really attached to the government. He 
repeats his recommendation of Col. William H. Drayton, of South Caro- 
lina, though a federalist, as well qualified for the war department ; and 
as if to renove any objections, on account of his being a federalist, he 
said: 



:28b THE AMEPaCAN STATESMAN. 

" Permit me to add, that names, of themselves, are but bubbles, and 
sometimes used for the most wicked purposes. I will name one instance. 
I have once been denounced as a federalist. You will smile when I 
name the cause. When your country put up your name in opposition to 
Mr. M., (Madison) I was one of thoee who gave you the preference, for 
the reason that, in the event of war, which was then probable, you would 
steer the vessel of state with more energy, &c. &c. That Mr. M., was one 
of the best of men, and a great civilian, I always thought; but I always 
believed that the mind of a philosopher could not dwell on blood and car- 
nage with any composure : of course that he was not very well fitted for 
a stormy sea. I was immediately branded with the epithet federalist, 
and you also. But I trust, when compared with the good old adage, of 
the tree being known by its fruit, it was unjustly applied to either." 

Mr. Monroe, on the 1st of March, communicated to the general his 
selection Cf some of his cabinet officers. He states that Mr. Clay, who 
had declined the offer of the war department made to him the last sum- 
mer by Mr. Madison, had again declined it ; that he then fixed his mind 
on him, (Jackson) but doubted whether he ought to draw him from the 
command of the southern army, where, in case of any emergency, no one 
could supply his place. He then resolved to nominate ***** j though 
it was uncertain whether he would serve. For secretary of state he had 
determined upon Mr. Adams, " whose claims, by long service in our 
diplomatic concerns, appearing to entitle him to the preference, supported 
by his acknowledged abilities and integrity, his nomination will go to the 
senate. Mr. Crawford, it is expected, will remain in the treasury." 

In answer, (March 18,) the general approves the selection of Mr 
Adams as the best that could be made. In the hour of difficulty, he 
would be an able helpmate, and his appointment would afford general 
satisfaction. 

In accordance with the sentiments expressed in his letter to Gen. 
Jackson, Mr. Monroe selected his cabinet officers exclusively from the 
republican party. John Quincy Adams, then minister at London, was 
called to the office of secretary of state ; William H. Crawford was con- 
tinued secretary of the treasury ; and Benjamin W. Crowinshicld, of 
Massachusetts, was continued secretary of the navy ; Isaac Shelby, of 
Kentucky, was selected for the department of war, but declining, the 
office was vacanit until the appointment of John C. Calhoun, December 
16, 1817; Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, was continued attorney-gen- 
eral, performing also the duties of secretary of state, until the return of 
Mr. Adams, whom he succeeded as minister to Great Britain, in Decem- 
ber following ; when William Wirt was appointed attorney-general. 
Return J. Meigs, of Ohio, was continued postmaster-general. The last 
• was not then a cabinet officer. 



THE SEMINOLE WAR. 289 

Regarding an effective frontier defense as an object of high importance — 
the want of which had been severely felt during the war — the president, 
in the summer, made a tour through the eastern states, for the purpose 
of a personal examination of the condition of the fortifications along the 
Atlantic coast ; continuing his journey westward along our northern 
waters to Detroit, and returning to the seat of government through Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The president was every where received 
with those demonstrations of respect which were due to his official station. 



CHAPTER XXL 

THE SEMINOLE WAR, OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE OCCUPATION OF 

FLORIDA BY GENERAL JACKSON. RATIFICATION OF A TREATY WITH 

SPAIN. TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN. CESSION OF FLORIDA AND THE 

WESTERN TERRITORY, 

The Seminole war, as an item of political history, derives much of its 
Importance from the question which it involves; viz., whether the occu- 
pation of Florida and other transactions relating to that war were not 
violations of the neutrality of Spain, of the law of nations, and of the 
constitution and laws of the United States. 

In August, 1814, while the war existed between the United States 
and Great Britain, a British force, commanded by Col. Nicholls, entered 
Florida, then a province of Spain, took possession of Pensacola and the 
fort of Barancas, and by public proclamation invited runaway negroes, 
savage Indians and traitors to join their standard, and wage war against 
our defenseless inhabitants bordering on the neutral and violated terri- 
tory of Spain. On the approach of the army under Gen. Jackson, Col. 
Nicholls evacuated this part of the province, and established himself on 
the Appalachicola river, where he erected a fort from which to carry on 
his predatory warfare, and where he continued his hostile operations 
after the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States 
and Great Britain. 

By the 9th article of this treaty, the United States stipulated to put 
an end immediately to all hostilities with the Indian tribes with whom 
they were at war, and to restore to them all the possessions which be- 
longed to them prior to the year 1811. This stipulation did not apply 
to the Creeks. This nation had been brought, during the war, to terms 
of peace by Gen. Jackson, and in a treaty concluded in August, 1814, 
bad ceded to the United States a part of their lands. 

19 



290 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The expected peace, however, was not secured. The Seminoles were 
tribes living within and on the borders of Florida. A large portion of 
them were fugitives from northern tribes residing within the United 
States, whose numbers had been considerably augmented by Indians who 
were dissatisfied with their treaty, and had taken refuge in Florida, car- 
rying with them feelings of hostility against the United States. Though 
most of the Seminoles resided in Florida, they were induced by Col. 
Nicholls to believe that they were, by the treaty of Ghent, entitled to 
all the lands owned by the whole Creek nation within the United States 
m 1811, and that Great Britain would enforce the observance of that 
treaty. 

The Seminoles soon manifested their hostile feelings ; and, for the 
security of the frontier, forts were established, and occupied by a portion 
of the regular forces. In the summer of 1817, murders having been 
committed on our citizens, Gen. Gaines was sent with a force to protect 
the inhabitants, with directions not to cross the Florida line, but to de- 
mand of the Indians a surrender of those who had committed the crimes. 
Among the instigators to these outrages, were Alexander Arbuthnot and 
Robert C. Ambrister, British subjects, who revived the pretense, that 
these Indians were entitled to the lands ceded by the Creeks to the 
United States in 1814. The demand for the murderers was made and 
refused ; massacres and plunder were continued ; and a border warfare 
ensued, in which the most wanton butcheries were perpetrated by the 
Indians without regard to age or sex. 

With a view to the speedy termination of the war. Gen. Jackson, who 
had been appointed to the command, entered the Spanish province of 
Florida, and took possession of the posts of St. Marks and Pensacola. 
The government of Spain protested against these acts as invasions of her 
territory, and demanded the prompt restitution of these and all other 
forts and places, with all the property, public and private, taken and 
occupied by the forces under Gen. Jackson, and indemnity for all injuries 
and losses sustained by the crown and subjects of Spain. The contro- 
versy which ensued was conducted principally through Louis de Onis, 
the Spanish minister at Washington, and John Quincy Adams, secretary 
of state. 

For the security of the inhabitants residing on the borders of both 
countries, the United States and Spain were, by the treaty of 1795, re- 
ciprocally bound, " by all means in their power, to maintain peace and 
harmony among the several Indian nations who inhabit the country ad- 
jacent to the lines and rivers which form the boundaries of the two 
Floridas ; and the better to obtain this effect, both parties oblige them- 
selves expressly to restrain, by force, all hostilities on the part of the 



OCCUPAHON 01 FLORIDA BY GENERAL JACKSON. 291 

Indian nations living within their boundaries ;" so that neither party 
should suffer the Indians within its territory to commit acts of hostility 
against the citizens or subjects of the other party, " in any manner 
whatever." 

It was alleged by the Spanish minister that the governor of Florida 
had observed a strict ticu'^rality throughout the provinces during the late 
war between the United States and Great Britain. The obligation to 
prevent all hostile acts of the Indians of Florida against our citizens was 
acknowledged ; and it was declared that the governor had faithfully 
recommended and enjoined peace and harmony with our citizens, and 
that, if any complaints had been made to the Spanish authority of any 
excesses committed by the Indians, (with which, however, they were not 
chargeable,) forcible means would have been employed to compel them 
to a reparation of injuries, and to punish them for their outrages. 

Mr. Adams, in reply, referred to the treaty of 1795. Notwithstand- 
ing this express compact, the most shocking barbarities had been com- 
mitted, by the Seminole Indians and a banditti of negroes sallying from 
within the Spanish border, and retreating to it again with the fruits of 
their crimes. The governor of Pensacola had been called upon by a 
letter from Gen. Jackson to break up this stronghold ; but he had pleaded 
an insufficiency of force to fulfill the obligation of his government. By 
the laws and usages of nations, we had a right to pursue an enemy seek- 
ing refuge in a neutral territory. But Florida was not in this case even 
a neutral, being the abode of an enemy of the United States whom 
Spain was bound to restrain. 

The previous occupation of St. Marks was also defended. A report 
direct from the governor of Pensacola, as well as information from other 
reliable sources, had reached Gen. Jackson, that the fort of St. Marks 
had been threatened by the Indians and negroes ; and the governor him- 
self had, from the weakness of the garrison, expressed apprehension for 
its safety. To avoid the hazard of life in an attempt to expel the enemy, 
it was necessary to anticipate his movements, and get possession of it 
peaceably. 

The duplicity and unfriendly feelings of the commandant of St. Marks 
had been clearly discovered. He had thrown open the gates of the fort, 
and permitted it to be used for councils of war ; for storing goods ; and 
for trading in cattle and other property plundered from our citizens. 
Foreign agents also had free access ; and Arbuthnot, the chief instigator 
of the war, was an inmate of the commandant's family. When charged 
by Gen. Jackson with having given aid to the enemies of the United 
States, he admitted that he had been governed by policy. The defense- 
less state of the garrison had induced him to manifest external friendship 
bj oper* "■' " tress, lest it should be entered by violence. 



292 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mr. Adams also reminded the Spanish minister of the erection of the 
fort upon Spanish territory, under the sufferance of Spanish authorities, 
by British officers during the war, for the annoyance of the United 
States, and of its having remained the stronghold of fugitive negroes and 
Indian robbers and murderers after the peace. And in reply to the plea 
of De Onis, that measures would have been taken to restrain the Indians 
had the authorities known them to be necessary, Mr. Adams observed 
that " the obligation of Spain was positive and unqualified ; and that an 
attempt to evade its force by the allegation that Spain could not carry 
it into effect until she knew what hostilities had been committed, and the 
possible causes of them, would be equally unwarranted by the express 
terms of the article, and by the intentions of the contracting parties. 
The stipulation of Spain was not to punish her Indians for murders com- 
mitted upon the aged and infirm, the women and children of the United 
States, but to restrain them from committing them : and the insinuation 
that the Indians had been provoked to such atrocious acts, would be as 
disingenuous, on the part of Spain, to escape from the sacred duties of 
her compact, as it would be unfounded in point of fact." 

Gen. Jackson having, in a letter of the 2d of June, 1818, announced 
the termination of the Seminole war, Mr. Adams, in a letter to De Onis 
of the 23d of July, informed him that St. Marks and Pensacola would 
be restored — the latter to any person duly authorized by Spain to receive 
it. St. Marks, being in the heart of the Indian country, and remote 
from Spanish settlements, could be surrendered only to a force sufficient 
to hold it against the attack of hostile Indians, when such force should 
appear. 

The conduct of Gen. Jackson in the prosecution of the Seminole war, 
was the subject of severe animadversion and of official investigation. He 
had, it was alleged, violated, in sundry instances, not only the instruc- 
tions of the war department, but the constitution of the United States. 
Arbuthnot and Ambrister had, by his order, been tried by a court mar- 
tial, and found guilty, on the following charges : the former, of exciting 
the Creek Indians against the United States, and of aiding, abetting, and 
comforting the enemy, supplying them with the means of war ; the lat- 
ter, of the first of the above charges, and of leading and commanding the 
lower Creek Indians in carrying on a war against the United States. 
Arbuthnot was sentenced by the court to be hung ; Ambrister to be 
shot. On a reconsideration of the vote on the sentence of the latter, it 
was changed to fifty stripes on the bare back, and confinement with a 
ball and chain, to hard labor for one year. Gen. Jackson, however, dis- 
3.pproved the reconsideration. The evidence against the prisoner being 
clear, and the law of nations regarding an individual of a nation making 



OCCUPATION OF FLORIDA BY GENERAL JACKSON. 293 

war against the citizens of any other nation as having forfeited his alle- 
giance, and become an outlaw and a pirate, the general ordered him to 
be shot, agreeably to the first sentence of the court. 

The proceedings of G-en. Jackson in the Seminole war were made the 
subject of investigation by congress at the ensuing session. In the 
house of representatives, on the 12th of January, 1819, the committee 
on military aifairs, to whom the subject had been referred, made a 
report, in which they express the opinion, that there is no law authoriz- 
ing the trial of Arbuthnot and Ambrister before a military court ; that 
there was no necessity for the death of the prisoners, the war being 
virtually at an end ; the enemy's strongholds destroyed ; the Indians 
dispersed; the forts in our possession; and the Georgia militia having 
returned to their homes. The offenses charged were not piracies, which 
imply offenses on the high seas, of which the court could not take cog- 
nizance. Nor did the term " outlaw " apply to the offenders ; it applied 
only to the relations of individuals with their own governments. The 
reversal of the sentence of the court in the case of Ambrister was also 
disapproved as contrary to the forms and usages of the army. The 
committee accordingly submitted the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the house of representatives of the United States 
disapproves the proceedings in the trial of Alexander Arbuthnot and 
Robert C. Ambrister." 

Another paper, drawn up in the shape of a report, but which had 
been refused by a majority of only one vote, was submitted by R. M. 
Johnson of the same committee. This paper defended the proceedings 
of Gen. Jackson, both in the occupation of the Spanish posts, and in 
the trial and execution of Ambrister and Arbuthnot. Florida, it was 
said, was no longer neutral territory. The Spanish authorities had, by 
their own act, made it the seat of war ; and having, whether by weak- 
ness or partiality, suffered the enemies of the United States to retreat 
into Spanish territory, to collect strength and provide supplies for a 
renewal of the conflict, our army had a right, by the law of nations, to 
pursue the enemy into that territory. 

The principle was also asserted, as consonant to the laws of nature 
and of nations, that when a nation departs from the rules of civilized 
warfare, " and grossly violates the laws of nations and of humanity, 
retaliation or reprisals are always justifiable, often useful, and some- 
times necessary, to teach the offenders to respect the laws of humanity, 
and to save the effusion of blood. In such cases, when the guilty per- 
sons can be taken and identified, the punishment ought to fall exclusively 
upon them." Hence, Ambrister and Arbuthnot, for their agency in this 
s?avage warfare, might have been lawfully executed, even without the 



294 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

intervention of a court-martial. The committee, however, expressed 
the opinion, that it would have been more correct for Gen. Jackson, 
after having submitted the case to a court martial, to acquiesce in its 
decision as to the punishment to be inflicted. 

On the 8th of February, the question was taken on the report of the 
military committee and Mr. Cobb's resolutions, which were disagreed 
to, as follows : On disagreeing to that part of the report which related 
to the case of Arbuthnot, 1 08 to 62. On that which related to Ambris- 
ter, 107 to 63. A resolution was then moved by Mr. Cobb, declaring 
the seizure of the Spanish posts at Pensjfcolaand St. Carlos de Baraneas 
to have been contrary to the constitution of the United States. After 
a motion to postpone its consideration indefinitely had been negatived, 
87 to 83, the resolution was disagreed to, 100 to 70. 

In the senate the subject was referred to a select committee, who also 
made a report disapproving the acts of Gen. Jackson. They charge 
him, first, with having raised his army in disregard of positive orders. 
The constitution gives to congress " the power to raise armies, and to 
provide for calling forth the militia to suppress insurrections and inva- 
sions ; " and in conformity with this provision, congress has authorized 
the president, on such occasions, to call on the governors or any militia 
officers of the states for the requisite militia force. Gen. Jackson had 
been ordered to make such call on the governor of Tennessee ; but he 
had, contrary to orders, himself raised a volunteer force of 1000 mounted 
gun-men to serve during the campaign. He had also himself appointed 
the officers, in direct violation of the provision of the constitution, which 
reserves to the states this power ; and five of these officers, created by 
him, and holding their office at his will, were members of the court 
martial. The committee saw no necessity of thus hastily increasing the 
regular army. The whole strength of these undisciplined banditti of 
Indians and fugitive slaves, did not exceed 1000 men, while under 
Gen. Gaines, previous to Gen. Jackson's taking the command, there 
were 1800 regulars and militia, and the 1500 friendly Indians subsidized 
by the former general. 

Gen. Gaines, it was said, had been enjoined, in case the enemy should 
take refuge under a Spanish garrison, not to attack them there, but to 
report the fact to the secretary of war. Gen. Jackson having succeeded 
to the command, ought to have observed the injunction. Having 
annulled the civil and military governmedt of Spain, he abolished her 
revenue laws, and established those of the United States, as beiug more 
favorable to our commerce ; appointed a collector, and instituted a new 
government, the powers of which, civil and military, were vested in 
military officers 



OCCUPATION OF FLORIDA BY GEN. JACKSON. 295 

As Spain had not invaded the United States, nor congress declared 
war against her, his taking possession of the Spanish posts, and imposing 
terms of capitulation, were acts of war against that nation which 
congress alone had power to declare or make. Had Spain violated every 
article of the treaty, the executive was bound to require its observance 
on our part, until it should have been annulled or revoked by congress. 
Her conduct, though it had been deemed by congress good cause of war, 
would not make her a party to the war : this could be done only by op- 
posing Gen. Jackson by physical force. 

The committee also noticed the projected expedition against St. 
Augustine. More than two months after the war had been terminated, 
suspecting that the agents of Spain or the officers of St. Augustine had 
excited the Indians to hostility, and furnished them with means of war, 
he issued an order to Gen. Gaines, dated Nashville, August 7, 1818, 
directing him, if evidence of this fact should be obtained, and his force 
should be deemed sufficient, to take and garrison the fort with United 
States troops, and to hold the garrison prisoners, until he should hear 
from the president, or to transport them to Cuba, as he should think 
best. The general declared the order to rest, *' not on the ground that 
we are at war with Spain, but on the broad basis of the law of nature 
and of nations, and justified by giving peace and security to our fron- 
tiers." The committee considered this an assumption of authority to 
make war on a neutral colony, in disregard of the legislative and execu- 
tive authorities of the United States. The secretary of war, on receiving 
a copy of the order, promptly countermanded it. " And then," say the 
committee, " was arrested a military scheme as unconstitutional as it 
was impolitic, and which might, as stated by the secretary of war, in his 
letter of the 8th of September, 1818, have involved this nation in a war 
with all Europe." 

The committee considered the execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister 
** as an unnecessary act of severity," without precedent in our conflict 
with the savages, and dishonorable to our national character. This com- 
mittee, as that of the house, controverted the principle that these men, by 
uniting in war against the United States, while we were at peace with 
Great Britain, " became outlaws and pirates^ and liable to suffer death." 
This principle was not recognized by the custom and usages of civilized 
nations. 

The report was made to the senate on the 24th of February, 1819 — 
too late a day to admit its being acted on during the session, which 
closed the 3d of March. Strictures written with great ability, strongly 
animadverting upon the character of the report, and vindicating the 
general, soon appeared in the newspapers ; and at the next session of 



296 THE AMERICAN STAl^SMAN. 

congregs, Gen. Jackson presented to the senate a memorial in his own 

defense against the conclusions of the committee's report. 

The general alleged, in justification of his proceedings, the discretion- 
ary orders from the department of war. He had been directed to act 
offensively — to bring the war to a speedy termination ; to inflict exem- 
plary punishment for hostilities so unprovoked ; and to establish a peace 
on such terms as would make it honorable and permanent. Powers 
more ample could not have been conferred. He was not bound by the 
orders issued to Gen. Gaines. But even if they had been obligatory, 
they must have lost their force, as the case they contemplated never oc- 
curred. The orders to himself had superseded those directed to Gen. 
Gaines ; he could not therefore be guilty of their violation : and the sub- 
sequent approval of his measures by the executive, he considered as set- 
tling the question. 

The terms of capitulation had been settled by the general government j 
and he, not as negotiator, but as conqueror of the country, had received 
their submission on those terms, which demanded the surrender of the 
instigators of the war. 

The occupation of the Spanish posts was necessary to the execution 
of his orders. The war could not have been effectually terminated while 
the enemy were assisted and encouraged in their savage hostilities. The 
authority of Spain over Florida, according to the acknowledgment of 
her own commanding officers, had ceased ; and he was not bound to re- 
spect an authority that did not exist — a sovereignty that was not asserted 
or exercised. The aid rendered the savages was so flagrant a violation 
of good faith on the part of Spain, as wholly to merge the neutral char- 
acter. Ambrister had appeared before St. Marks with about 500 negroeg 
and Indians ; and an equal number had been seen about Pensacola, the 
most of whom had been equipped for war by governor Magot; a strength 
sufficient, in both instances, for a forcible occupation of these posts. 
The governor had refused the passage of provisions up the Escambia for 
the relief of our starving troops ; and the vessels had been detained 
and captured. Had he waited for additional orders from the war depart- 
ment, the object of anticipating the enemy in obtaining possession of the 
fort, would have been defeated ; the time of the militia force would have 
expired before any thing efficient could have been done, and the campaign 
rendered abortive. 

These proceedings were not acts of war : they had not been directed 
♦igainst the government of Spain. The Spanish government did not so 
consider them. The two governments still acknowledged themselves at 
peace. It would appear from the correspondence, that he had entered 
the territory of Spain as a friend^ to chastise an enemy of both nations, 



OCCUPATION OF FLORIDA BY GEN. JACKSON. 297 

and to enforce obligations and duties which the Spanish authorities had 
pleaded inability to perform. Nor was it true, as stated by the com- 
mittee, that the garrisons were made prisoners of war. 

As to the new government, nothing more was contemplated than some 
kind of civil authority to protect the lives and property of the citizens 
during the temporary occupancy of the fortress. The temporary gov- 
ernor was a military oflScer ; but civil officers were appointed to the dif- 
ferent departments from amongst the citizens. The establishment of 
the revenue laws of the United States became necessary to prevent 
smuggling, as well as to admit the American merchant to an equal par- 
ticipation in trade, which was denied by the Spanish laws. 

The execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, he said, was justified by 
precedent and the laws of nations. They had become identified with the 
outlawed Red Sticks and fugitive negroes, who were in a state of open 
rebellion — associates in war, and acting as their chiefs. Great Britain 
would not interfere in their case ; and the Spanish authorities either 
would not, or could not. Respecting none of the laws of civilized war- 
fare, they could not claim the benefit of these laws, and were as much 
outlaws to all their provisions as a pirate on the ocean. It should be 
remembered that these British outlaws and the Indian chiefs were the 
monsters demanded to be surrendered by the treaty of Fort Jackson, 
the terms of which had been antecedently settled by the government, 
ratified by your honorable body, and carried into efi"ect by congress ; and 
that these British incendiaries were the instigators of the war, upon 
whom " exemplary punishment" was to be inflicted. The rights and 
privileges secured by the rules and articles of war, belonged only to our 
own countrymen ; and the offenses having been committed by foreigners 
beyond our territorial limits, the only law applicable to the case was the 
law of nations, which attaches to their crimes no other penalty than 
that of death. Hence, the last sentence of the court in the case of 
Ambrister being deemed void, the first was confirmed and executed. 

Gen. Jackson also denied that, in raising the volunteers, he had disre- 
garded the orders of the war department, or the constitution and laws. 
His orders were to call upon the governors of the adjacent states for 
such additional force as he might deem necessary to beat the enemy, no 
number or description of troops having been mentioned. He had been, 
in the language of the department, " vested with full powers to conduct 
the war as he might judge best." He cited facts to show that the dan- 
ger and distress of the frontier settlements and a part of the army were 
such as to demand immediate relief. As it was not known that the 
governor was then at Knoxville or in the Cherokee nation, and as there 
was danger in waiting for the slow process of drafting militia, he had 



'298 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

appealed to his old and tried comrades in arms; and on the same day 
the governor had been written io, apprising him that, if the appeal for 
volunteers should not be promptly answered, 1000 drafted militia would 
be required : and the measure had received the governor's approval and 
cooperation. 

Nor had he, as the committee alleged, appointed the officers ; they 
Lad, at his own request, been chosen by the volunteers themselves. The 
appointment of an inspector-general of the southern division, to super- 
intend the organization, and lead them to Fort Scott, where he took the 
command, was his only agency in the whole transaction. Every measure 
touching the raising and organizing of the volunteers, had been fully 
approved by the department. The committee, to make it appear that 
there was no necessity for this hasty increase of the army, had misstated 
the number of the enemy. They had been computed by Gen. Gaines at 
2,800, and by Arbuthnot at 3,500. So also had the forces under Gen. 
Gaines been greatly exaggerated. 

In vindicating his order for the occupation of St. Augustine, the 
general admitted that the war had been supposed to be at an end ; 
but subsequent information had proved the opinion to be erroneous. A 
number of murders and other outrages had been committed. Intelli- 
gence from Major Twiggs had created a strong presumption that this 
post also had become a depot and retreat for the negroes and Indians 
after they had been driven from Negro Fort, St. Marks, and Peusacola. 
The order, however, was conditional and prospective ; and had the facts 
reported been established, there would have been the same reason for the 
occupancy of St. Augustine as of the other Spanish fortresses. 

From the foregoing summary of facts and arguments, the reader is 
left to draw his own conclusions. The character of our public men and 
that of the nation, are inseparable. What aflfects the former, necessa- 
rily affects the latter. The various public services of Gen. Jackson 
have given his name a conspicuous place on the roll of our distin- 
guished men. When, subsequent to the transactions here recorded, he 
was before the public as a candidate for the presidency, the old charges 
of usurpation of power, and of insubordination to the constitution and the 
laws, were revived ; and many of our citizens formed their opinions of 
his official acts from representations made at a time and under influences 
not the most favorable to candid inquiry and calm consideration. It 
therefore seemed to be due to Gen. Jackson, to give a detailed sketch 
of his proceedings in the Seminole war, and to allow him the benefit of 
being heard in self-defense. With regard to the justice of the high 
charges preferred against him, there was at the time a wide difference of 
opinion. His acts appear to have been fully justified by Mr. Adams, 



RATIFICATION OF A TREATY WITH SPAIN. 299 

as secretary of state, in his correspondence with the Spanish minister 
and Mr. Erving, our minister to Spain. On the other hand, Mr. Clay, 
then a member of the house of representatives, zealously advocated the 
adoption of the resolution of censure reported by the military com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Monroe, in his annual message of November 17, 1818, alluded 
to this subject as follows : " In authorizing Major^General Jackson to 
enter Florida in pursuit of the Seminoles, care was taken not to encroach 
on the rights of Spain. * * * The commanding general was con- 
vinced, that he should fail in his object, that he should in effect accom- 
plish nothing, if he did not deprive those savages of the resources on 
which they had calculated, and of the protection on which they had 
relied, in making the war. 

" Although the reasons which induced Major-G-eneral Jackson to take 
these posts were duly appreciated, there was, nevertheless, no hesitation 
in deciding on the course which it became the government to pursue. 
As there was reason to believe that the commanders of these posts had 
violated their instructions, there was no disposition to impute to their 
government a conduct so unprovoked and hostile. An order was in con- 
sequence issued to the general in command there to deliver the posts ; 
Pensacola, unconditionally, to any person duly authorized to receive it, 
and 3t. Marks, which is in the heart of the Indian country, on the arri- 
val of a competent force to defend it against those savages and their 
associates. 

" In entering Florida to suppress this combination, no idea was enter- 
tained of hostility to Spain; and however justifiable the commanding 
general was, in consequence of the misconduct of the Spanish officers, in 
entering St. Marks and Pensacola to determine it by proving to the 
savages and their associates that they could not be protected even there ; 
yet the amicable relations existing between the United States and Spain 
could not be altered by that act alone. By ordering the restitution of 
the posts, those relations were preserved. To a change of them the 
power of the executive is deemed incompetent ; it is vested in congress 
only." 

This language of the president, considered with the prompt orders to 
surrender the posts, indicates, on his part, an apprehension that the 
occupation of these posts was incompatible with a state of neutrality. 
A revival of this controversy took place during the administration of 
Gen. Jackson, in which several interesting additional facts were elicited, 
which will be found in their appropriate place. 

A treaty with Spain, concluded at Madrid, August 11, 1802, and 
»'atlfied by our government, but tlie ratification of which by Spain had 



300 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

been withheld for sixteen years, was published by the president on the 
22d of December, 1818. This treaty provided for the settlement, by 
the arbitration of commissioners, of all claims of the citizens of Spain 
and of the United States, respectively, for losses sustained by the depre- 
dations of citizens of the two governments prior to the year 1802. The 
claims of the United States for spoliations by French privateers, carry- 
ing their prizes into the ports of Spain, during the same period, were 
not provided for, but reserved for fulure negotiation. 

A treaty with Great Britain was concluded October 20, 1818, at 
London, by Richard Rush, American minister to the court of Great 
Britain, and Albert Gallatin, minister to France, on the part of the 
United States, and Frederick John Robinson and Henry Goulburn, on 
the part of Great Britain. The ratifications of the two governments 
having been duly exchanged at Washington, the treaty was proclaimed 
by the president of the United States on the 30th of January. 

By this treaty, the right of our citizens to the eastern fisheries were 
settled and guarantied. A line between the territories of the two 
countries was also determined, viz. : From the most north-western point 
of the Lake of the Woods to the 49th degree of north latitude, and 
along the said parallel of latitude to the Rocky Mountains. And any 
territory claimed by either party on the north-west coast, west of the 
Rocky Mountains, was, with its harbors and navigable waters, to be free 
to the u'se of both parties for the term of ten years. This agreement 
was to prevnnt disputes and differences, and not to be construed to the 
prejudice of the claim of either party to any part of the country. The 
north-eastern boundary was not settled by this treaty. 

As differences had arisen whether, by the true intent and meaning of 
an article of the treaty of Ghent, the United States were entitled to 
compensation for slaves within the territory or places occupied by the 
British forces at the +ime of the making of the treaty, and directed by 
that treaty to be restored to the United States ; these differences were 
to be referred to the arbitration of some friendly power. In pursuance 
of this agreement, the question was subsequently referred to the emperor 
of Russia,. who, on the 30th of June, 1822, gave his decision as fol- 
lows: That the United States were entitled to indemnification for all 
the slaves carried away by the British forces from places and territories 
which the treaty stipulated to restore, in quitting these same places and 
territories : That all slaves were to be considered as having been Sa 
carried away, who had been transferred from these territories to British 
vessels within the said territories, and who for this reason had not been 
restored : But that for slaves carried away from territories which the 
treaty did not stipulate to restore, the United States are not entitled to 



CESSION OF FLORIDA. 301 

indemnification. The emperor also appointed two of his privy council- 
lors, Count Nesselrode and Count Capodistrias, together with Henry 
Middleton, the American minister at St. Peter sburgh, and Charles 
Bagot, the British minister at the same place, to provide the mode of 
ascertaining the value of the slaves, and of other private property 
unlawfully carried away, and for which indemnification was to be made. 

Negotiations on the subject of the long standing disputes between the 
United States and Spain, were, after the temporary suspension caused 
by the Florida controversy, resumed, and soon brought to a successful 
termination. A treaty of amity, settlement, and limits, was concluded 
at Washington, on the 22d of February, 1819, by John Quincy Adams, 
secretary of state, and Luis de Onis, the Spanish minister at Washing- 
ton. By this treaty, Spain ceded to the United States all her territory 
east of the Mississippi, known by the name of East and West Florida, 
and a large territory west of that river. 

The cession of the ^floridas included the adjacent islands dependent 
on these provinces, with all public lots, buildings, fortifications, and the 
archives and documents which related directly to the property and 
sovereignty of the provinces ; the archives and documents to be left in 
possession. of the commissioners or officers of the United States autho- 
rized to receive them. 

West of the Mississippi was ceded the territory east and north of the 
boundary line running along the west bank of the Sabine, from the gulf 
of Mexico to the 32d degree of north latitude, being the north-west limit 
of the state of Louisiana; thence due north to the Rio Roxo of Nachi- 
toches, or Bed River ; thence following the same westward to longitude 
100 degrees from London, and 23 from Washington; then crossing 
Red River and running thence due north to the river Arkansas ; thence 
along the southern bank of the same to its source, in latitude 42 degrees 
north ; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea, (Paci- 
fic;) the whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, 
published at Philadelphia, improved on the 1st of January, 1818. But 
if the source of the Arkansas should be found to be north or south of 
latitude 42, then the line was to run from the said source north or south 
to that latitude, and thence along the said parallel to the South Sea. 
All the islands in the Sabine, Red, and Arkansas rivers were to belong 
to the United States; but the use of the waters and the navigation of 
the Sabine to the sea, and of the Red and Arkansas throughout the 
extent of the said boundary, on their respective banks, were to be com- 
mon to the inhabitants of both nations. 

The inhabitants of the ceded territories were to be secured in the free 
exercise of their religion ; and they were to be incorporated into the 



302 jTHE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

union as soon as might be consistent with the principles of the federal 
constitution, and to be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. 

The United States stipulated to pay out of the proceeds of the sales 
of lands in Florida, or in stock or money, as congress should prescribe, 
to our own citizens, on account of spoliations and other injuries received 
by them from the government of Spain, or from the governments of her 
colonies, a sum not exceeding ^ve millions of dollars; the amount of 
the claims to be ascertained by a board of three commissioners, citizens 
of the United States, to be appointed by the president and senate, and 
and to make their report within three years. All other claims on each 
other for spoliations or other injuries, were mutually renounced by the 
two governments. 

Spanish vessels laden only with productions of Spanish growth or manu- 
facture, direct from the ports of Spain or her colonies, were to be admitted 
for the term of twelve years, to the ports of Pensacola and St. Augus- 
tine, on the same terms as vessels of the United States ; the twelve 
years to commence three months after the exchange of the ratifications 
of the treaty. 

This treaty, of which these are the most essential provisions, was 
hailed throughout the country as a satisfactory termination of the tedious, 
unpleasant negotiations with Spain. The National Intelligencer, in 
announcing the ratification of the treaty by the senate, said : " It termi- 
nates the only existing controversy with any of the European powers. 
It rounds ofi" our southern possessions, and forever precludes foreign 
emissaries from stirring up Indians to war and negroes to rebellion, 
whilst it gives to the southern country important outlets to the sea. It 
adjusts the vast western boundary, acknowledging the United States to 
be sovereign, under the hitherto contested Louisiana treaty, over all the 
territory we ever seriously contended for. In a word, it is a treaty than 
which the most sanguine have not anticipated one much more favorable ; 
it is one that fully comes up to the expectations of the great body of 
the American people." 

A few days after the treaty was concluded, in expectation of its 
prompt ratification on the part of Spain, a law was passed in pursuance 
of a recommendation of the president, for the occupation of Florida. 
The anticipated ratification, however, which by a provision of the treaty 
was to have taken place, and ratifications exchanged, within six months 
from its date, was, for reasons unknown to our government, delayed by 
Spain long beyond that time. 

During this period of suspense there was much speculation as to the 
cause of the delay. Some ascribed it to the interference of the British 



CESSION OF FLORIDA. 303 

p-overnment, which was averse to the cession of the Floridas to the 
United States; and it was suspected that a secret arrangement was in 
progress between the governments of Spain and Great Britain to pre- 
vent the stipulated transfer of the treaty. It was rumored on the 
authority of letters from abroad, that, to an existing treaty between 
England and Spain, certain secret articles were attached really ceding 
Florida to Great Britain, on consideration that she should guaranty to 
Spain her other American colonies. Apprehensions of a war between the 
United States and Spain prevailed in England and France, as well as in 
this country ; and certain movements under the direction of our govern- 
ment, were regarded as indications of a design to be prepared for such 
an emergency. 

Many of our citizens were in favor of taking possession of the terri- 
tory withoiit waiting farther for the ratification, believing that the act 
would be justified by the unredressed injuries we had suffered. At 
length, pursuant to the recommendation of the president in his annual 
message, the committee on foreign relations, on the 8th of March, 1820, 
made a report on the subject, accompanied by a bill, " requiring the 
president to take possession of and occupy the territories of East and 
West Florida." But before any decisive action was taken upon the bill, 
information having been received by the president, that a new minister 
had been appointed to the United States with power to settle all differ- 
ences, and the governments of England, France and Russia having 
interposed their good offices to promote the ratification of the treaty, as 
well as expressed a desire that our government would delay any measure 
tending to disturb the peace between the United States and Spain ; the pre- 
sident communicated the same to congress, with the suggestion to postpone 
a decision on the questions depending with Spain, until the next session. 

The new minister, General Vives, arrived about the first of April. 
He mentioned, as reasons sufficiently valid to exonerate the king from 
the obligation of ratifying the treaty, the hostility pursued against the 
Spanish dominions, and the property of their inhabitants, by American 
citizens ; the decisions of several courts of the union ; and the criminal 
expedition set on foot for the invasion of the Spanish possessions in 
North America, when the ratification was still pending. Upon these 
points he asked for explanations, and a pledge to take measures to 
repress these excesses, and to prevent any invasion of Spanish posses 
sions ; and to form no relations with the revolted Spanish provinces 
in South America. These demands, he said, would have been long since 
communicated through our minister at Madrid, (Mr. Forsyth,) if he had 
not expressed himself in terms disrespectful to his majesty. 

Explanations, satisfactory to General Vives, were made by Mr 



304 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Adams on the points presented, except that relating to the southern pro- 
vinces, our government being unwilling to contract an engagement not 
to form any relations with them. The answer to this point was commu- 
nicated to the king ; and, if it should be received by him as satisfactory, 
the treaty would probably be ratified. The ratification took place on 
the 24th of October, 1820; and the treaty was proclaimed by the presi- 
dent on the 22d.of February, 1821, precisely two years from its date 



CHAPTEE XXII. 

INVESTIGATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES BANK. OPINION 

OF THE SUPREME COURT ON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. DECISION OF THE 

CIRCUIT COURT. JUDICIAL DECISION ON BANKRUPT LAWS QUESTION 

OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 

The public mind had become much excited by the refusal of the bank 
of the United States to receive the notes of its branches, except in pay- 
ment of debts due to the United States, and by sundry acts of alleged 
mismanagement on the part of the directors highly injurious to the pub- 
lic interest. The dissatisfaction with the bank had become so general 
as to induce congress to institute an investigation of its afi"air3 and 
management. 

The inquiry was moved by John C. Spencer, of New York, on the 
25th of November, 1818, who, as chairman of the committee of investi- 
gation, on the 16th of January, 1819, made a very elaborate report, 
reviewing minutely the transactions of the bank, and expressing the 
opinion that it had in several instances violated its charter. The com- 
mittee also reported a bill for the better regulation of the election of the 
directors. No other remedial measures were recommended, as, by the 
provisions of the charter, the secretary of the treasury had full power to 
apply them, which it was presumed would be done, should the directors 
persist in a course of conduct which should require it. 

Subsequently, February 1, the same gentleman presented a resolution 
requiring the corporation, on or before the 1st of July, to declare their 
consent to certain propositions providing more stringent regulations in 
the management of its afiFairs ; and in case of non-compliance, the secre- 
tary of the treasury was required to cause all the public deposits to be 
withdrawn from the bank and its branches on that day, and the attorney- 
general was required to sue out a writ of scire facias, in conformity with 



AFFAIRS OF THE T NITED STATES BANK. 305 

its charter, calling upon the corporation to show cause why its charter 
should not be declared forfeited. 

A proposition was made by Mr. Johnson, of Virginia, to repeal the char- 
ter ; which was opposed by Mr. Spencer. The immediate destruction of 
the bank, he said, would ruin thousands who had become its debtors, and 
inflict a wound upon the public credit, and tarnish the national faith 
abroad. The resolutions on the subject were referred to the committee 
of the whole on the bank report, all of which were subsequently with- 
drawn, or disagreed to, and the bill reported by Mr. Spencer, with amend- 
ments designed to render its provisions more effectual, was passed. It 
was believed the bank had been too much managed in a spirit of specu- 
lation. Reformation, however, and not destruction, appears to have 
been the desire even of those most unfriendly to the institution. 

There was about this time a general depreciation of state bank paper ; 
and many of the state banks were compelled to suspend specie payments. 
The greatest pressure prevailed in the south-western states. 

In March, 1819, was decided in the supreme court, the case of M'Cul- 
loh against the state of Maryland, involving the question of the power 
of a state to impose a tax on a branch of the bank of the United States. 
The plaintiff was president of the branch bank in Maryland, which had 
been taxed under a law taxing the banks of that state. This cause, in 
the opinion of the court, presented two questions : (1.) Has congress 
power to incorporate a bank ? (2.) Can a state, without a violation of 
the constitution, tax a branch bank ? 

The first of these questions was decided in the affirmative. The 
arguments upon which the decision was founded, are substantially those 
by which the constitutionality of the banks of 1791 and 1816 were main- 
tained in congress. [See bank of the United States.] 

In construing the constitution, the counsel for the state of Maryland 
considered it, not as having emanated from the people, but as the act of 
sovereign and independent states. And the powers of the general gov- 
ernment were delegated by the states, and must be exercised in subordi- 
nation to the states, who alone were supreme. The convention which 
framed the constitution, the court said, was indeed elected by the state 
legislatures. But it was a mere proposal without obligation, until it had 
been submitted, not to the state governments, but to a convention of 
delegates in each state chosen by the people, for their assent and ratifi- 
cation. Hence the adoption of the constitution was properly considered 
the act of the people themselves. The confederation, which was a mere 
league, was formed by the state sovereignties. The " more perfect 
union" under the constitution was the act of " the people of the United 
States." 

20 



306 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The government is one of enumerated powers, and possesses those only 
which are granted to it. But, though limited in its powers, it is supreme 
within its sphere of action. Among its enumerated powers is not that 
of establishing a bank, or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase 
in the instrument which excludes incidental or implied powers. The 
confederation authorized the exercise of such powers only as were 
expressly granted. But the word " expressly" was omitted in the con- 
stitution. It was not even inserted in the 10th article of amendment, 
which was framed to quiet the jealousies which had been excited against 
that instrument. 

The great powers having been given to lay and collect taxes, to borrow 
money, to regulate commerce, to declare and conduct a war, and to raise 
and support armies, it must be for the interest of the nation to facilitate 
the execution of these powers. And it was not to be presumed, the 
court said, that the express grant of these powers was intended to clog 
and embarrass their execution by withholding the most appropriate 
means. As the constitution does not profess to prescribe the means of 
executing its powers, the government is left to a choice of means. 
Hence, a corporation, if it is essential to a beneficial exercise of granted 
powers, may be created for this purpose. 

Congress has " power to make all laws which are necessary and proper 
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers," &c. It was contended 
that tliis did not authorize, in all cases, the choice of means, but the 
passing of such laws only as were absolutely indispensable, and without 
which the powers granted could not be executed. It was maintained, on 
the contrary, by the court, that the word " necessary" did not always 
import an absolute physical necessity ; that in common use it meant no 
more than that one thing is convenient, or useful, or essential to another; 
that it had not a fixed character peculiar to itself ; but that, like many 
other words, it admitted of all degrees of comparison. ... A thing 
might be necessary, very necessary, or absolutely or indispensably neces- 
sary. The constitution prohibits a state from laying " imposts, or duties 
on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for exe- 
cuting its inspection laws." The word " absolutely" being here inserted, 
it was evident the framers intended to give a difi'erent meaning to the 
word " necessary" in this place from that given to it when granting 
power " to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execu- 
tion" the powers of the general government. 

Against the right of a state to tax the bank, it was argued, that, if 
congress could create, it could of course continue a bank. But the power 
of taxing it by the states might be so exercised as to destroy it. Taxa- 
tion had been claimed, on the part of the state, as an absolute power. 



DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT. 307 

and, like other sovereign powers, was trusted to the discretion of those 
who used it. But the sovereignty of the state, in the article of taxation 
itself, is subordinate to, and may be controlled by. the constitution of 
the United States. i, 

It was contended on the part of the state of Maryland, not that the 
states may resist a law of congress, but that they may exercise their 
acknowledged powers upon it ; and that the constitution leaves them this 
right in the confidence that they will not abuse it. 

The court admitted that the power of taxation was essential to the 
very existence of government, and might be exercised on objects to which 
it was applicable, to the utmost extent to which the government might 
choose to carry it. And the fact that, in imposing a tax, the legislature 
acts upon itself, as well as upon its constituents, and the influence of the 
latter over their representatives, were deemed a sufficient security against 
the abuse of this unlimited power of taxation given by the people of a 
state to their government. But the sovereignty of a state extends only to 
what exists by its own authority, but not to the means employed by congress 
to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the 
United States. These powers are not given by the people of a single state, 
but by the people of all the states, to a government whose laws, made 
in pursuance of the constitution, are declared to be supreme. The people 
of a state, therefore, can not confer a sovereignty which will extend over 
them. Besides, if the states might tax one instrument employed by the 
government in executing its powers, they might tax any and every other. 
They might tax the mails, the mint, patent rights, papers of the custom- 
house, judicial process, and all other means employed by the government, 
to an excess which would defeat all the ends of government. 

In view of these and other reasons, the court unanimously declared 
the law of Maryland imposing a tax on the bank of the United States, 
unconstitutional and void. This opinion, however, did not deprive the 
states of any resources which they originally possessed. The real pro- 
perty of the bank, and the interest held in the bank by citizens of Mary- 
land, were liable to taxation. 

Another case of taxation occurred in the state of Ohio ; and a suit 
was brought before the United States circuit court by the bank against 
the officers of the state for the recovery of the money. A law had been 
enacted in that state, by which it was provided, that, if the branches at 
Cincinnati and Chillicothe did not cease their operations by the first of 
September, 1819, a tax of $100,000 should be levied on the bank. On 
the 15th of September, a bill in chancery, issued from the United States 
circuit court, was served on the auditor of the state, who was directed 
to answer to the bill of complaint, praying for an injunction against hia 



808 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

proceeding under the law of the state to tax the bank of the United 
States. On the same day, the auditor proceeded to charge tie bank 
with the sum of $100,000 ; one-half on each of the branches above men- 
tioned, and directed the tax to be collected. The collector, with two 
assistants, entered the branch at Chillicothe, and demanded payment, 
which was refused ; whereupon they entered the vaults, and took out 
specie and paper to the amount of $100,000, and conveyed the money to 
the state treasury. 

A protracted litigation ensued. A communication on the subject was 
made by the state auditor to the legislature, and resolutions, reported 
by a joint committee, were adopted by large majorities, (1.) Approving 
the doctrines of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 
1799. (2.) Protesting against the doctrines of the federal circuit court 
sitting in that state as being in direct violation of the 11th amendment 
of the constitution of the United States. (3.) Asserting, and resolving 
to maintain, the right of the states to tax the business and property of 
any private corporation of trade incorporated by congress, and transact- 
ing its business within any state. (4.) Declaring the bank of the United 
States to be a private corporation of trade. (5.) Protesting against the 
doctrine, that the political rights and powers of the separate states, may 
be settled in the supreme court of the United States, so as to conclude 
and bind them, in eases contrived between individuals, and in which none 
of them is a party direct. 

A decision was at length made, September, 1821, in the circuit court 
of the United States, decreeing the restoration of the $100,000 which 
had been seized, with interest on the specie part of it, (the specie being 
nearly $20,000,) and granting a perpetual injunction against the collec- 
tion of any tax in future under the act of Ohio. 

Another important decision of the supreme court about this time, was 
on the question of the constitutionality of state bankrupt and insolvent 
laws. The case was that of Sturges against Crowninshield ; the defend- 
ant pleading a discharge under " an act for the benefit of insolvent 
debtors and their creditors," passed by the legislature of New York in 
1311. 

On the several questions which arose in this case, the opinions of the 
court were, (1.) That, in the absence of any uniform laws of congress on 
the subject of bankruptcies, authorized by the constitution, the states 
may pass a bankrupt law, provided that it does not violate that provision 
of the constitution which declares, that " no state shall pass any law 
impairing the obligation of contracts." (2.) That the law of New York, 
which not only liberates the person of the debtor, but discharges him 
from all liability for any debt previously contracted, on his surrendering 
his property, is clearly a law impairing the obligation of contracts. 



QUESTION OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 309 

The court made a distinction between the obligation cf a contract and 
the rejicdy' to enforce that obligation. The remedy might, be modifiod 
without impairing the obligation. Hence, a law requiring the imprison- 
ment of an insolvent debtor may be repealed. Imprisonment of an 
insolvent debtor being no part of the contract, the relief of the prisoner 
does not impair its obligation. 

This construction of the constitution did not extend to statutes of 
limitation, and laws against usury. Statutes of limitation relate to the 
remedies furnished in the courts, and establish that certain circumstances 
shall amount to evidence that a contract has been performed, rather than 
dispense with its performance. But if a law were passed which should 
limit to six years the obligation of a contract previously made, there 
would be little doubt of its unconstitutionality. And so with respect to 
usury and other laws. So far as they affect, contracts already made, 
they are deemed unconstitutional and void. 

The subject of internal improvements by the general government, has 
received the attention of our statesmen from an early period of the gov- 
ernment under the constitution ; and has often been elaborately discussed 
in congress, and in documents emanating from the highest official 
sources. In 1807, the attention of the senate was directed to this sub- 
ject ; and in pursuance of a resolution of that body, the secretary of the 
treasury, Mr. Gallatin, made an able and valuable report. And reports 
have since been made, at different times, recommending some system of 
internal improvements. 

On the 3d of March, 1817, the day which terminated the 14th con- 
gress and Mr. Madison's administration, the bill was returned with the 
executive veto, on the ground of its unconstitutionality. 

Anticipating a revival of the subject of internal improvement, Mr. 
Monroe, in his first annual message, took occasion to express his opinion 
in advance, against the right of congress to establish such a system of 
improvement. Owing, probably, to these executive communications, the 
subject, for several years, seems to have received little attention from 
congress. ^ 

At the session of 1821-1822, memorials and petitions from several 
states, soliciting the aid of the general government in works of internal 
improvement, were presented to congress, and referred to the committee 
on roads and canals in the house of representatives, who, on the 2d of 
January, 1822, made a favorable report, designating the "national ob- 
jects which, in the opinion of the committee, claim the first attoiition of 
the government." With the report was a bill, authorizing the president 
to cause to be made the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates of these 
objects, and of such other routes for roads and canals as he might deem 
of national importance in a commercial or military point of view. 



310 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

Among the advantages of a well regulated system (.f internal improve- 
ments, the committee, in their report, mention the " regular trade in 
the exchange of manufactured articles for raw materials," which would 
take place, and the " nation's receiving within itself the whole benefit 
usually gained between old and now countries;" it being admitted by 
the ablest writers on political economy, that the most important branch 
of the commerce of a nation was that which is carried on between the 
inhabitants of the towns and those of the country. This trade was 
attended with less risk than the foreign, which is always liable to be dis- 
turbed by war and the fluctuating policy of other nations. The various 
talents and inclinations of the citizens would be called into activity, and 
a greater amount of labor insured to the nation ; and the ready inter- 
course between the different parts of the country, would produce an 
identity of interest and fraternity of feeling, which would strengthen the 
bonds of the imion. The lines of communication contemplated would 
benefit nearly every state in the union ; yet no one or two states had 
sufficient inducements to furnish the means to construct any one of these 
works. Objects so important to the welfare and defense of the nation 
must be made by the general government, or their construction was 
scarcely to be expected. 

In an additional report, (April 26,) the committee expressed the 
opinion, that the time had arrived when the national improvements ought 
to be commenced ; and pointed out their benefits to the nation. They 
considered the national resources sufficient at least to commence the 
surveys and estimates of the more important works, which would require 
several years ; and as our finances should improve, the improvements 
might be prosecuted to completion. The committee did not enter largely 
into a discussion of the power of congress on the subject. They be- 
lieved, however, that the constitution alone could confer the power ; and 
that the consent of the states was not necessary to its constitutional exer- 
cise. If congress had no power to construct roads and canals, and main- 
tain a control over them, it had no power to purchase lauds for the pur- 
pose of making them ; but it had been the practice of congress to allow 
to the new states five per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of public 
lands to be laid out in the construction of roads and canals ; three-fifths 
having been generally expended within the states, and two-fifths under 
the direction of congress, in making roads leading to the states. The 
committee mentioned several works authorized during the admiuistration.s 
of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, one of which was the opening of a 
road passing through a state, and without asking its consent. And they 
asked : " How is it possible to reconcile these acts with the idea that 
congress possesses no power to construct roads and canals ?" 



QUESTION OF INTERNA:^ IMPROVEMENTS. 311 

The committee, to strengthen their positions, alluded also to the leport 
of the secretary of war, (Mr. Calhoun,) of the 7th of January, 1819, in 
compliance with a resolution of the house of representatives adopted at 
the preceding session, instructing him to report at the next session " a 
plan for the application of such means as are within the power of con- 
gress for the purpose of opening and constructing such roads and canals 
as may deserve and require the aid of government, with a view to mili- 
tary operations in time of war ;" together with such information on the 
subject as he might deem material to the objects of the resolution. 

The secretary, in his report, did not discuss the constitutional ques- 
tion ; his object being chiefly to show the utility of a system of roads 
and canals, and to designate the several routes in difi"erent parts of the 
union, which he deemed essential to the defense and prosperity of the 
nation. From the general tenor of the report, however, it has been in- 
ferred, that he considered the construction of the works therein men- 
tioned within the power of congress. He said : " A judicious system 
of roads and canals, constructed for the convenience of commerce, and 
the transportation of the mail only, without any reference to military 
operations, is itself among the most efficient means for ' the more com- 
plete defense of the United States.' Without adverting to the fact, that 
the roads and canals which such a system would require, are, with few 
exceptions, precisely those which would be required for the operations of 
war, such a system, by consolidating our union, increasing our wealth and 
fiscal capacity, would add greatly to our resources in war." 

Referring to the difficulties experienced during the late war, from the 
want of these improvements, he said : " As it is the part of wisdom to 
profit by experience, so it is of the utmost importance to prevent a re- 
currence to a similar state of things, by the application of a portion of 
our means to the construction of such roads and canals as are required 
* with a view to military operations in time of war, the transportation of 
the munitions of war, and the more complete defense of the United 
States.' " And in carrying out the plan, he suggested " as the basis of 
the system, and the first measure in the plan, that congress should direct 
such survey and estimate to be made, and the result to be laid before 
them as soon as practicable." 

The committee did not deem it expedient to recommend the immediate 
prosecution of any work, and concluded their report with a resolution, 
declaring it expedient at present only to procure the surveys, plans and 
estimates proposed by the bill. This bill, however, did not become a law. 

At the same session, a bill " for the preservation and repair of the 
Cumberland road," passed by both houses, was returned to the house of 
representatives by the president, with the objection " that congress do 



312 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

not possess the power, under the constitution, to pass such a law." The 
substance of his objection is contained in the following paragraph : 

" A power to establish turnpikes with gatCB and tolls, and to enforce 
the collection of tolls by penalties, implies a power to adopt and execute 
a complete system of internal improvement. A right to impose duties 
to be paid by all persons on a certain road, and on horses and carriages, 
as is done by this bill, involves the right to take the land from the pro- 
prietor, on a valuation, and to pass laws for the protection of the road 
from injuries ; iiud if it exists as to one road, it exists as to any other, and 
to as many roads as congress may think proper to establish. A right to 
legislate for one of these purposes, is a right to legislate for the others. 
It is a complete right of jurisdiction and sovereignty for all the purposes 
of internal improvement, and not merely the right of applying money, 
under the power vested in congress to make appropriations, under which 
power, with the consent of the states through which this road passes, the 
work was originally commenced, and has been so far executed. I am of 
opinion that congress do not possess this power ; that the states, indi- 
vidually, can not grant it : for, although they may assent to the appro- 
priation of money within their limits for such purposes, they can grant 
no power of jurisdiction or sovereignty, by special compacts with the 
United States. This power can be granted only by an amendment to 
the constitution, and in the mode prescribed by it." 

The president did not, in this message, assign the reasons on which his 
objections were founded, but alluded to a paper expressing his senti- 
ments, which he had occasionally, as his attention had been drawn to the 
subject, committed to writing. This paper, one of the longest ever com- 
municated to congress, was, on the same day, transmitted to the house. 
It contains a very elaborate review of the articles of confederation and 
the constitution, tracing the origin of the state and national governments, 
and critically examining their respective powers. And the conclusion at 
which the president arrived was, that congress had not the right to adopt 
and execute a system of internal improvement ; but not doubting " that 
improvements for great national purposes would be better made by the 
national government than by the governments of the several states," he 
expressed the opinion, that " an amendment to the constitution ought to 
be recommended to the several states for their adoption." 



THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 313 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. ADMISSION OF MAINE AND MISSOURI INTO 

THE UNION. 

During the session of 1819-20, was passed the act to admit the new 
state of Missouri into the union. A bill for this purpose had been in- 
troduced at the preceding session. In its progress in the house, Gen. 
Tallmadge, of New York, moved an amendment prohibiting the farther 
introduction of slavery within the territory, and requiring that all 
children born therein after its admission, should be free at the age of 
twenty-five years. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 73 to 67, 
but was disagreed to in the senate ; and the bill was lost. 

At the next session, (December 7, 1819,) a memorial from the people 
of the district of Maine, until then a part of the state of Massachusetts, 
praying to be admitted into the union on an equal footing with the 
original states, with a copy of the constitution formed for the state, was 
presented to the house. At the same time was presented a memorial 
from the people of Missouri, asking to be authorized to form a consti- 
tution, and to be admitted as a state. A bill for the admission of Maine 
passed the house without material opposition. In the senate its progress 
was arrested by Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia, who moved an amend- 
ment (February 3d,) coupling it with the bill for the admission of Mis- 
souri without any restriction as to slavery. This gave rise to a debate 
which continued till near the close of the session, and terminated in the 
famed " Missouri compromise." 

In the house on the 26th of January, Mr. Taylor, of New York, 
moved an amendment to the Missouri bill of that body, interdicting 
slavery in the state ; providing, however, that fugitive slaves might be 
reclaimed within the same, and that the provision should not alter the 
condition of those already held as slaves in the territory. In the house 
also the debate was long and animated. 

On the 16th of February, in the senate, the proposed junction of the 
two states into one bill was decided in the affirmative, 23 to 21 ; all the 
senators being present and voting. From the free states, Edwards and 
Thomas, the two senators from Illinois, and Taylor, of Indiana, voted 
in the affirmative; and from the slave states, the Delaware senators, 
Horsey and Van Dyke, voted in the negative. 

Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, then offered an amendment to the Missouri 
branch of the bill, proposing to prohibit slavery in all that territory 
ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, 



314 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



lying north of 36 1-2 degrees north latitude, except within the limits 
of the proposed state of Missouri. The next day the amendment was 
adopted, 34 to 10; and the bill was ordered to a third reading, 24 to 
20. From the free states, those who voted in the affirmative, were Ed- 
wards and Thomas, of Illinois, Hunter, of Rhode Island, and Parrott, of 
New Hampshire. From slave states, Macon, of North Carolina, and 
Smith, of South Carolina. 

On the 23d of February, the Maine bill having been returned to the 
house, the amendments of the senate were disagreed to ; the proposition 
to annex the Missouri bill to the Maine bill, by a vote of 93 to 72, and 
the compromise section, 159 to IS: and a message announcing the fact 
was sent to the senate. On the 28th, the senate refused to recede from 
its amendments ; that providing for the admission of Missouri being 
adhered to by a vote of 23 to 21 ; and that inhibiting slavery, by 33 to 
1 1 : and the house was informed of the determination of the senate to 
insist on its amendments. On the same day, the house again voted to 
insist on their disagreement to the amendments; to the first, 97 to 76 ; 
to the last, embracing the compromise, 160 to 14: and the senate was 
informed of the determination of the house to disagree. The senate, 
then, on motion of Mr. Thomas, appointed a committee of conference, 
consisting of Messrs. Thomas, Pinckney and Barbour. The conference 
was the next day (29th) agreed to by the house, and a committee of five 
appointed, consisting of Messrs. Holmes, Taylor, Lowndes, Parker, of 
Massachusetts, and Kinsey. 

In the house of represenatives, the Missouri bill as amended in com- 
mittee of the whole, including the amendment moved by Mr. Taylor the 
26th of January, was ordered to a third reading, 93 to 84 ; and on the 
next day, (March 1st,) was passed, 91 to 82, and sent to the senate for 
concurrence, when, the next day, the restrictive clause was stricken out, 
and the senate's compromise clause inserted, and returned to the house 
of representatives. The house, before any vote was taken upon it, re- 
ceived the report of the conference, which recommended, (1.) That the 
senate recede from its amendments to the Maine bill, that is, detach 
from it the Missouri branch ; (2.) That both houses strike out of the 
Missouri bill the restriction upon the state; (3.) A restriction on all 
other territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes. The committee of con- 
ference was unanimous in this report, with the exception of Mr. Taylor, 
of the committee on the part of the house, who did not concur in striking 
out the restriction. 

The question was first taken on striking out the restriction upon 
the state, and decided in the affirmative, 90 to 87; the speaker not 
voting, and 8 absent, including Mr. Walker, of Kentucky, deceased. 



THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 315 

If, as was presamed, five of the absentees, if they had been present, 
would have voted against concurring, and the other two who were living 
would have voted for concurring, the question would have been deter- 
mined by the vote of the speaker. Before taking the question on the 
second amendment of the senate, (the compromise,) Mr. Taylor moved 
an amendment by striking out the words, " 36 degrees 30 minutes north 
latitude," and inserting a line which would exclude slavery from all the 
territory west of the Mississippi, except Missouri and Arkansas, and 
the state of Louisiana. To avoid taking the question on this amend- 
ment, some member moved the previous question. The motion having 
been sustained, the main question was tsA^eu on concurring with the 
senate in inserting the clause inhibiting slavery north of 36 degrees 30 
minutes north latitude, and decided in the affirmative, 134 to 42. 

The advocates of the unrestricted admission of Missouri contended that 
the prohibition of slavery would place her on an unequal footing with 
the other states. By the treaty ceding Louisiana to the United States, 
the inhabitants were to " be incorporated into the union, and to be 
admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the consti- 
tution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of 
citizens of the United States;" and congress was bound, in good faith, 
to admit Missouri without imposing upon her citizens terms to which 
they did not consent. Congress had not the right to prescribe the terms 
of admission. The general government had no constitutional right to 
interfere with the municipal policy of a state, farther than was necessary 
and proper to carry into effect the powers expressly granted to that gov- 
ernment. The constitution declared, that " the powers not delegated to 
the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, 
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," The right to 
hold slaves was one of these rights ; and the guaranty applied to the 
new states as well as to the original states. It was conceded that the 
right of congress to admit new states, implied the power to refuse admis- 
sion ; but it did not give the right to impose the terms of admission. 

In sujDport of the restriction it was said, that congress, under the 
" power to dispose of and make all needful rules respecting the terri- 
tory and other property of the United States," had passed laws for the 
survey and sale of the public lands, and the division of them into terri- 
tories, and had established governments in them. The power to make 
needful rules and regulations includes the power to determine what regu- 
lations are necessary, and consequently, the power to prohibit slavery, if 
such prohibition shall be deemed a needful regulation. It was said, too. 
that the power to admit new states was conferred without limitation ; 
and congress might admit them at discretion as to time, terms and cir- 



316 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

cum Stan CCS. No new state could, of right, demand admission, unless 
the demand was founded on some previous engagement with the United 
States. Hence, the prohibition of slavery might be made a condition of 
admission. 

It was said, farther, that the exercise of this power had been sanc- 
tioned by congress. The ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery in the 
North Western Territory, passed by the old congress, had been ratified 
by the new congress at their first session under the constitution ; and 
new states had been admitted in conformity to the " articles of com- 
pact" embraced in the ordinance, one of which was that which excluded 
slavery. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia had, 
by the unanimous vote of their delegates, approved that ordinance. 
North Carolina must have supposed that congress possessed the power 
to prohibit slavery in the new territory, having made the grant upon the 
express condition, " that no regulation made, or to be made by congress, 
should tend to emancipate slaves." Georgia, also, in ceding the Missis- 
sippi territory, had made a similar exception. 

It was also said to be an error to represent Missouri as now entitled 
to the rights and prerogatives of a state. These she would not have 
until she had a constitution sanctioned by congress, and an act of admis- 
sion had been passed. 

In reply to those who claimed for the people of Missouri the right to 
judge for themselves in the matter of excluding slavery, it was said, that 
congress had a right to judge whether it would be for the good of the 
union to admit new states in which slavery should be permitted. The 
interests of the whole nation were afi"ected by the character and condi- 
tion of those who were to be members of the political family. 

It is unnecessary to observe, that in a debate of nearly two months' 
duration, a large number of members must have participated. Among 
the senators who took a prominent part in the discussion, were King, of 
New York, Morrill and Burrell, of New Hampshire, Mellen, of Massa- 
chusetts, Roberts and Lowrie, of Pennsylvania, in favor of the proposed 
restrictions; and Barbour, of Virginia, Smith, of South Carolina, 
Macon, of North Carolina, and Thomas, of Illinois, in opposition. 
In the house, John W. Taylor, of New York, Edwards, of Connecticut, 
Fuller and Cushman, of Massachusetts, Plumer and Claggett, of New 
Hampshire, Hendricks, of Indiana, and Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, in 
favor of restriction ; and Holmes, of Massachusetts, (District of Maine,) 
Baldwin of Pennsylvania, Clay, of Kentucky, Pvandolph, Tyler and 
Smyth, of Virginia, Lowndes and Pinckuey, of South Carolina, and 
McLane, of Delaware, in opposition. 

The bill for the admission of Maine having become disconnected from 



THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 317 

the Missouri bill, all obstruction to its passage was removed ; and the 
people of the district having already adopted an approved constitution, 
the act of admission was complete. Different, however, was the case of 
the people of Missouri. Their constitution was not presented until the 
next session. On the 23d of November, 1820, Mr. Lowndes, of South 
Carolina, from the committee to whom it was referred, in their report to 
the house, alluded to a provision which directed the legislature to pasr 
laws " to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, or set- 
tling in, the state," which might be construed to apply to persons of thin 
class who were citizens of the United States, and whose exclusion was 
deemed repugnant to the federal constitution, which declares that " the 
citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
ties of citizens in the several states." But the committee, preferring to 
leave this question for judicial decision whenever a case requiring it 
should arise, reported a resolution for the admission of Missouri. 

On the 29th, a committee of the senate, Mr. Smith, of South Caro- 
lina, chairman, reported a similar resolution. Mr. Eaton, of Tennessee, 
who seems to have entertained doubts of the constitutionality of the 
clause alluded to in the report of the committee of the house, moved 
and obtained a postponement ; and, on the 6th of December, offered a 
proviso to the resolution, that nothing contained therein should be so 
construed as to give the assent of congress to any provision in the con- 
stitution of Missouri, which contravened that clause of the constitution 
of the United States which declares, that " the citizens of each state 
shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
several states." The question on this amendment was postponed to the 
next day; when Mr. King, of New York, objected to the proposed 
amendment, expressing the opinion that the proviso would not weaken 
the effect of the offensive article; and the senate, after having negatived 
a substitute offered by Mr. Wilson, of New Jersey, rejected Mr. Eaton's 
amendment, 21 to 24. The question then recurred on the resolution 
itself, and, after some debate, was postponed until the next day, and was 
not taken until the 1 1th. Before taking the question, Mr. Eaton again 
offered his proviso, which was adopted by a bare majority; and the reso- 
lution so amended, was agreed to, 26 to 18. With the exception of Mr. 
Macon, of North Carolina, all those who voted in the negative were 
from the free states. From the free states voting in the affirmative, 
were. Chandler and Holmes, of Maine, Edwards and Thomas, of Illi- 
nois, Parrot, of New Hampshire, and Taylor, of Indiana. 

In the house, Mr. Lowndes' resolution was taken up for considera- 
tion on the 6th, and debated until the 13th, when the question was taken, 
and the resolution rejected, 79 to 93. Besides negativing one or two 



318 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

proposed ameudments similar to that adopted in the senate, no farther 
proceedings were had upon the subject, until the 29th of January, 1821, 
when the amended resolution of the senate was taken up. Mr. Clay 
supported the resolution. Mr. Randolph moved to strike out the pro- 
viso; and amendments were subsequently proposed, at different times, 
by Messrs. Foot, of Connecticut, Storrs, of New York, S. Moore, of 
Pennsylvania, and M'Lane, of Delaware, designed to annul or expunge 
the oflfensive clause — all of which were rejected. 

On the 2d of February, Mi-. Clay, anxious to make a last effort to 
settle the question, moved to refer the senate's resolution to a commit- 
tee of thirteen. The committee was appointed, Mr. Clay being chair- 
man, who, on the 10th, reported an amendment, admitting Missouri on 
condition that the state never pass a law excluding from the state any 
persons the citizens of any other state of the union ; and upon the 
assent of the legislature of Missouri to this condition, communicated to 
the president on or before the fourth Monday in November next, he was 
to proclaim the fact ; and the admission of the state was to be there- 
upon complete. The question, after a long debate in committee of the 
whole, was taken on the amendment, (Feb. 12,) and decided in the neg- 
ative, 64 to 73; and, after rejecting a motion of Mr. Storrs to postpone 
the subject indefinitely, the question was taken, in the house, on concur- 
ring with the committee of the whole in its disagreement to the report 
of the select committee, and by a vote of 83 to 8G, the house refused to 
concur ; and the amendment of the select committee was agreed to. But 
on taking the question on ordering the resolution to a third reading, a 
few members being absent, it was lost, 80 to S3. So the whole resolu- 
tion, with the amendment, was rejected. 

The next day, (13th,) Mr. Livermore of New Hampshire, moved to 
amend the journal of yesterday's proceedings, by striking therefrom the 
order " that the clerk acquaint the senate with the decision of the house," 
that he might move a reconsideration of the decision ; and the motion was 
agreed to. The question on reconsideration was decided in the affirma- 
tive, lOl to 66. But the question on ordering the resolution to be 
engrossed and read a third time, was lost, 82 to 88. 

In the house, on motion of Mr. Clay, on the 20th, a committee was 
appointed to meet a committee on the part of the senate, to consider 
and report on the expediency of providing for the admission of Missouri, 
(fee. On the 26th of February, Mr. Clay, the chairman of this com- 
mittee, reported a resolution, providing " that Missouri shall be admit- 
ted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, upon the 
fundamental condition, that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth sec- 
tion of the third article of the constitution submitted on the part of said 



ADMISSION OF MAINE AND MISSOURI. 319 

state to congi'OSSj shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any 
law, by which any citizen of either of the states of this union shall be 
excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to 
which such citizen is entitled under the constitution of the United 
States." And the legislature was required, by a public act, to declare 
the assent of the state to this condition, and to transmit to the presi- 
dent of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday of Novem- 
ber next, an authentic copy of the act ; and upon the public announcement 
of this fact by the president, the admission of the state was to be con- 
sidered complete. 

The resolution had its several readings the same day, and was 
passed; ayes, 87; noes, 81. It was sent to the senate, and concurred 
in by that body on the 28th, 28 to 14, 

Thus was consummated a measure which, in respect to the excitement it 
produced, and its influence upon our national destiny, has no parallel in the 
history of our government. The whole country was agitated. In anticipa- 
tion of a renewal of the application of Missouri for admission into the 
union, public meetings were held in Boston, New York, Trenton, Philadel- 
phia, Baltimore, and many other places ; and the question of slavery — its 
effects upon the public prosperity, the power and duty of the general govern- 
ment in relation to it, and the means of preventing its extension, were dis- 
cussed. Resolutions deprecating the introduction of slavery into new 
states were adopted ; and memorials to congress, remonstrating against the 
admission of Missouri with a constitution permitting slavery, were exten- 
sivel}'^ circulated. The legislatures of several states also passed resolutions 
on the subject, asserting the right of congress to require of new states the 
prohibition of slavery as a condition of their admission into the union, 
and requesting their senators and representatives in congress to oppose 
the admission of any state with a constitution permitting slavery. The 
states whose legislatures expressly declared the constitutional power of 
congress to impose the terms of admission, were New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, and Delaware. 

Nor was the excitement less intense in the southern than in the north- 
ern states. Alarmed by the attempt made at the preceding session of 
congress to impose upon Missouri the restriction of slavery as one of 
the terms of her admission into the union, active exertions were made 
to counteract the anti-slavery influence at the north- which would again 
bo brought to bear upon congress. Resolutions were passed in several 
of the slave states, declaring that congress had no power to prescribe to 
the people of Missouri the terms and conditions upon which they should 
be admitted into the union, and that congress was bound in good faith 
to admit them upon equal terms with the existing states. 



320 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

CHAPTEE XXIV. 

THE FINANCES. THE TARIFF OF 1824. SPEECHES OF CLAY ANP WEBSTER, 

The 18th congress commenced its 1st session December 1, 1823. 
Mr. Clay, who was again a member of the house of representatives, was 
chosen speaker by 139 votes against 42 given for Mr. Barbour, speaker 
of the last congress. 

The message of the president, delivered the next day, presented the 
state of public affairs in greater detail than was usual on such occasions. 
Among the subjects noticed was the favorable condition of the public 
finances; the balance that would remain in the treasury on the 1st of 
January ensuing, being estimated at nearly nine millions of dollars. 
Of the public debt, the message says: " On the 1st of January, 1825, 
a large amount of the war debt, and a part of the revolutionary debt, 
become redeemable. Additional portions of the former will continue to 
become redeemable annually, until the year 1835. It is believed, how- 
ever, that, if the United States remain at peace, the whole of that debt 
may be redeemed by the ordinary revenue of those years during that 
period, under the provision of the act of March 3, 1817, creating the 
sinking fund; and in that case, the only part of the debt that will 
remain after the year 1835, will be the seven millions of five per cent, 
stock subscribed to the bank of the United States, and the three per 
cent, revolutionary debt, amounting to thirteen millions two hundred 
and ninety-six thousand and ninety-nine dollars and six cents ; both of 
which are redeemable at the pleasure of the government." 

The president also renewed the recommendation to the last congress, 
of a review of the tariff for the purpose of affording additional protec- 
tion to manufactures ; and he called the attention of congress to several 
fr^pecified objects of internal improvement, which would require appro- 
priations of the public money. And as congress had not recommended 
to the states an amendment to the constitution vesting in the general 
government a power to adopt and execute a system of internal improve- 
ment, he suggested that the executive be authorized to enter into an 
arrangement with the states through which the Cumberland road passes, 
" to establish tolls, each within its limits, for the purpose of defraying 
the expense of future repairs." 

Probably the most important measure of congress at this session, was 
the revision and modification of the tariff. Since 181G, the subject of 



THE TARIFF. 321 

manufactures seems to have received for a few years little attention from 
congress. The tariff act of that year, protecting few important manu- 
factures except coarse cottons, afforded but a limited encouragement to 
the industry of the nation. Manufactures were languishing ; several 
large establishments were closed ; and in many others great numbers of 
workmen had been discharged. Agriculture was scarcely more pros- 
perous. The foreign demand for American grain, which had been kept 
up by the wars of Europe for a period of about twenty-five years, had 
nearly ceased with the restoration of peace. This, together with the 
limited and constantly diministtng home market, had reduced the prices 
of our surplus bread stuffs below the cost of production and transporta- 
tion to the sea board. Public meetings were held, and resolutions were 
passed ; associations were formed ; and petitions were presented to con- 
gress for relief. Action was also taken on the subject by the legisla- 
tures of some of the states, and their representatives were requested to 
endeavor to procure such modifications of the tariff as should encourage 
the employment of capital and industry in home manufactures. 

With a view to this object, a bill was reported in the house of repre- 
sentatives at the session of 1819-1820, and passed that body, 90 to 69. 
The bill was defeated in the senate, on a motion to postpone it till the 
next session, by a vote of 22 to 21. For the reason which will here- 
after appear, the votes of the several states in the house of representa- 
tives are here given, as follows : 

Massachusetts, (including Maine:) Ayes, 10; noes, 6; absent, 4. 
New Hampshire : Noes, 5 ; absent, 1. Rhode Island : Ayes, 2. Con- 
necticut : Ayes, 6; noes, 1. Vermont: Ayes, 1; noes, 2; absent, 3. 
New York : Ayes, 25 ; absent, 2. New Jersey : Ayes, 6. Pennsyl- 
vania : Ayes, 22; noes, 1. Delaware: Noes, 2. Maryland: Ayes, 1; 
noes, 5; absent, 3. Virginia: Ayes, 1; noes, 15; absent, 7. North 
Carolina: Ayes, 1; noes, II; absent, 1. South Carolina: Ayes, 1; 
noes, G; absent, 2. Georgia: Noes, 5 ; absent, 1. Kentucky: Ayes, 
4 ; noes, 3 ; absent, 2. Tennessee : Noes, 6. Ohio : Ayes, 6. Indi- 
ana : Ayes, 1. Illinois: Ayes, 1. Louisiana: Noes, 1. Mississippi: 
Noes, 1. Alabama: Noes, 1. 

The subject was again brought before congress, at several successive 
sessions, but without success, until the year 1824. In that year, a bill 
proposing to increase the duties on imports, after a discussion of more 
than two months, passed the house, April 16thf by a small majority: 
yeas, 107; nays, 102. In the senate, some amendments were made 
to the bill, to which the house disagreed. The difference between the 
two houses was subsequently settled by a committee of conference. The 
bill passed the senate, 25 to 22. Of those who voted in the aflSrmative 

21 



322 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

were Messrs. Benton, Dickerson, Jackson, Eaton, Johnson, of Kentucky, 
and Van Buren. Mr. King, of New York, voted in the negative. 

The debate in the house was one of extraordinary interest, and 
evinced, on the part of those who participated in it, an unusual degree 
of talent, and extensive knowledge. An attendant upon the discussion, 
in giving an account of it, daid: " Mr. Clay has been the Ajax Telamon 
of the bill, ably supported by Mr. Tod and many others on different 
points ; but Hectors were not wanting on the other side to contest the 
ground, inch by inch." Among the opponents of the bill were Messra. 
Webster, Hamilton, P. P. Barbour, and^orsyth. 

In this contest for protection, the state of Pennsylvania may perhaps 
be justly said to have taken the lead. The voice of her citizens 
expressed in public meeting, their petitions to congress, the resolves of 
her state legislature, and the persevering efforts of her representatives 
in congress, contributed largely to the success of the measure. The 
chairmen of the committees on manufactures in both the preceding con- 
gress and the present, were representatives from that state : Mr. Bald- 
win in the former, and Mr. Tod in the latter. They were ably sus- 
tained by Messrs. Buchanan, Ingham, Hemphill, and other colleagues. 

The following statement of the vote in the house is given that the 
reader may compare it with that of 1820 : 

Maine : Yeas, I ; nays, 6. Massachusetts : Yeas, 1 ; nays, 11. New 
Hampshire : Yeas, 1 ; nays, 5. Rhode Island : Yeas, 2. Connecticut : 
Yeas, 5 ; nays, 1. Vermont: Yeas, 5. New York : Yeas, 26 ; nays, 8. 
New Jersey : Yeas, 6. Pennsylvania : Yeas, 24 ; nays, 1 ; absent, 1. 
Delaware : Yeas, 1. Maryland : Yeas, 3 ; nays, 6. Virginia : Yeas, 1 ; 
nays, 21. North Carolina: Nays, 13. South Carolina: Nays, 9. 
Georgia: Nays, 7. Kentucky: Yeas, 11. Tennessee: Yeas, 2 ; nays, 
7. Ohio : Yeas, 14. Indiana: Yeas, 2 ; absent, 1. Illinois: Yeas, 1. 
Louisiana : Nays, 3. Mississippi : Nays, 1. Alabama : Nays, 3. 
Missouri: Yeas, 1. The speaker, Mr. Clay, being in the chair, did not 
vote ; and Mr. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Jennings, of Indiana, 
were absent. Their votes, had they been given, would have increased the 
yeas to 110. There was a vacancy in the representation from Massachu- 
setts, which, if it had been filled, would probably have been given in the 
negative. 

In Niles' Register of the 24th of April, the states are classed thus : 

Navigating aiid fishing states : Maine, New Hampshire, and Massa- 
chusetts, 23 (including one for the vacancy in Mass.) against, and 3 foi 
a tariff for the protection of domestic industry. 

Manufacturing states : Rhode Island and Connecticut, 7 for, and 1 
against. 



SPEECHES OF OLAY AND WEBSTER. 323 

Grain growing states : Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl- 
vania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, 24 for 
and 9 against. 

Tobacco planting and grain growing state : Maryland, 6 against 
and 1 for. 

Cotton and grain growing state : Tennessee, 7 against, and 2 for. 

Sugar and cotton planting state : Louisiana, 3 against. 

The editor adds : " The navigating and fishing states opposed the bill 
from an apprehension that it would injure commerce ; the grain-growing 
states supported it from a belief that its passage would benefit agricul- 
ture ; and the planting states united with the navigating against the bill, 
for the reason that it would be injurious to agriculture ! On this ground 
the two last classes are at issue ; but if we deduct the members from the 
grain growing states, who we may suppose were influenced by other con- 
siderations than those specially favorable to agriculture, it will appear, 
that what may be called the agricultural vote on the tariff", was almost 
two for, to one against it ; that is, 95 grain growing against 57 planting. 

" The unanimity of the navigating states against the wishes of the 
middle grain growing states, will surprise those who recollect, that the 
former were indebted to the latter for the passage of every law that pro- 
tected and established their navigation ; such as the discriminating duties 
on imports and tonnage; the building of certain frigates, &c., ' for the 
protection of commerce against the Barbary powers;' and, in 1796, for 
the establishment of a regular navy ' for the protection of commerce in 
general." And he notices what he calls the consistency of Virginia and 
the other states. "They opposed these measures, saying : ' Let commerce 
protect itself — indifferent whether their tobacco and other products 
were carried in American or foreign vessels. They now say: ' Let manu- 
factures protect themselves;' and in support of this proposition, use 
against them precisely the same arguments that were used thirty years 
ago against navigation." 

The following sketch of the speech of Mr. Clay in favor of the tariff!, 
and of that of Mr. Webster against it, presents the principal arguments 
on both sides of the question. 

Mr. Clay commenced by alluding, to the general distress, which, he 
said, was indicated by the diminished exports of native produce, by our 
reduced foreign navigation and diminished commerce ; by the accumula- 
tion of grain wanting a market ; by the alarming diminution of the cir- 
culating medium ; by the numerous bankruptcies among all classes of 
society ; by a universal complaint of the want of employment and a con- 
sequent reduction of the wages of labor; by -the reluctant resort to tho 
perilous use of paper money ; and above all, by the depressed 7alue of 



BHi THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

all kinds of property, wliicli had, on an average, sunk nearly fifty per 
cent, within a few years. 

The cause of our unhappy condition, he said, was found in the fact, 
that, during near'v the whole existence of the government, we had 
shaped our industry, our navigation, and our commerce, in reference to 
an extraordinary war in Europe, and to foreign markets which no longer 
existed. The revival of commerce and navigation, and the extension of 
agricultural and other branches of industry in that country, had destroyed 
the demand for our navigation, our commerce, and the produce of our 
industry. The altered state of Europe he regarded as the cause of exist- 
ing evils. The greatest want of civilized society, is a market for its 
surplus products of labor. Both a foreign and a home market were 
desirable ; but the latter was most important. The object of the bill 
was to create the latter, and to lay the foundation of a genuine Ameri- 
can policy. Foreign nations could not, if they would, take our surplus 
produce. Our population doubled in about twenty-five years ; theirs in 
about one hundred years. If, therefore, as was presumed, the increase 
of production and consumption was in the ratio of the increase of popu- 
lation, our power of production would increase in a ratio four times as 
great as their capacity for consumption. 

But if they could, they would not receive our agricultural produce, so 
far as it comes into collision with their own. They reject all our great 
staples which consist of objects of human subsistence, and receive only 
those raw materials essential to their manufactures, with the exception 
of tobacco and rice, which they can not produce. 

Both the inability and policy of foreign nations, then, forbid our reli- 
ance upon the foreign market for the surplus produce of American labor. 
This statement was confirmed by experience. The amount of all our 
exports of domestic produce, during the year ending September 30, 1796, 
was $40,704,097. Estimating the increase at four per cent, per annum, 
(the ratio of the increase of our population,) the amount of the exports 
of the same kinds of produce, during the last year, ought to have been 
$85,420,861 ; but it was only $47,155,408. During the five years from 
1803 to 1807, inclusive, the average amount of native produce annually 
exported, was $43,202,751. At the rate of increase suggested, the 
amount ought to have been, during the last year, $77,766,751, instead 
of $47,155,408. 

Descending into particulars, there was still less cause for satisfaction. 
The export of tobacco in 1 79 1 , the year of the largest exportation of that 
article, was 12,428 hogsheads. The export which ought to have been 
last year 266,332 hogsheads, was only 99,009. In 1803, we exported 
1,311,853 barrels of flour; last year, instead of 2,361,333, we exported 



SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 325 

only 756,702 ; and of this amount 150,000 were sent to South America. 
But this demand was temporary, growing out of the existing war. Of 
Indian corn the export last year was 749,034 bushels, or about one-fifth 
of what it should have been, and a little more than one-third of what it 
was in 1803. The exports of beef and pork also, instead of having 
increased, were much less than they were twenty years ago. Rice had 
only slightly advanced. Cotton alone showed a considerable increase. 
But whilst the quantity was augmented, its value was diminished. The 
quantity last year exceeded that of the preceding year, nearly 30,000,000 
pounds; yet the value was less by more than $3,500,000. In 1790, the 
capacity of our country to produce this article was scarcely known. 
"Were this article subtracted from the mass of our exports during the 
last year, the value of the residue would be only about $27,000,000. 

The distribution of the articles of export was also shown. Of the 
$47,155,408 to which they amounted last year, the three articles, cotton, 
rice, and tobacco, produced chiefly at the south, alone amounted to 
$23,549,177. The portion of our population engaged in their culture, 
probably did not exceed two millions. Thus, less than one-fifth of the 
whole population of the United States produced upwards of one-half, 
nearly two-thirds of the entire value of the exports of the last year. 

Was the foreign market likely to improve ? Europe would not aban- 
don her own agriculture to foster ours. The present value of our ex- 
ports might be maintained in future ; but to continue in the existing pur- 
suits of agriculture without creating a new market, must augment the 
quantity of our produce, and lessen its value in the foreign market. Cot- 
ton, as well as other articles, would be thus affected. Our agricultural 
is our greatest interest ; and to advance it, we should contemplate it in 
all its varieties of farming, planting and grazing. Can nothing be done 
to invigorate it ? Exclusive dependence on the foreign market must 
lead to still severer distress. Still cherishing the foreign market, let us 
create a home market to give farther scope to the consumption of the 
produce of American industry. Let us withdraw the support we give to 
foreign industry, and stimulate our own. It is a prominent object of 
wise legislators to multiply the vocations and to extend the business of 
society, by the protection of home interests against foreign legislation. 

A home market is necessary to secure not only a just reward for 
agricultural labor, but a supply of our wants. If we can not sell, we 
can not buy. That portion of our population, (four-fifths, as we have 
seen,) which produces comparatively nothing that foreigners will receive, 
has nothing wherewith to purchase from foreigners. It is better, there- 
fore, to buy the domestic fabric at a higher nominal price, than to buy 
the foreign for which we have nothing to give in exchange. The 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



superiority of the home market consists, (1.) ^'^ its greater steadiness and 
certainty ; (2 ) in the creation of reciprocal interest ; (3.) in its greater 
security ; and (4.) in an ultimate increase of consumption, and conse- 
quently of comfort, from increased quantity and reduced prices. 

To illustrate the benefits of this domestic policy, suppose that 
500,000 persons are now employed abroad in fabricating, for our con- 
sumption, those articles with which, by the operation of this bill, it is 
intended to supply ourselves. These persons are, in effect, subsisted by 
us ; but the means of their subsistence are drawn from foreign agricul- 
' ture. If they were transported to this country, the demand in the article 
of flour alone required for their subsistence, would be about 900,000 
barrels, which exceeds the entire quantity exported the last year. But 
if we should thus employ this number of our own citizens, instead of 
foreigners, the beneficial effects upon the farlning interest would be 
nearly doubled. By directing so many hands to other pursuits, the pro- 
ductions of agricultural labor would be greatly diminished. Thia 
diminution of the quantity alone would increase their proportional 
value ; but this value would be still farther enhanced by the home market 
created. 

The great desideratum in political economy is, so to apply the aggre- 
gate industry of a nation as to produce the greatest amount of wealth. 
Labor is the source of wealth ; but it is not natural labor only. The 
fundamental error of the gentleman from Virginia, (P. P. Barbour,) in 
deducing, from the sparseness of our population, our unfitness for the 
introduction of the arts, consists in not duly appreciating the power of 
machinery. Such are the improvements in machinery, that the propor- 
tion of the value given to many fabrics by natural labor is so inconsider- 
able as to be scarcely worth calculating. Hence, manual labor and the 
price of wages are of less account than they were in former times. For 
example : Asia, formerly, by the density of her population and the low- 
ness of wages, laid Europe under tribute for many of her fabrics. Now 
Europe, Great Britain in particular, reacts upon Asia, and throws back 
upon her countless millions of people the products of artificial labor, in- 
finitely cheaper than they can be manufactured by the natural exertions 
of that portion of the globe. It is to the immense power of her 
machinery that Britain is indebted for her enormous wealth. According 
to reliable estimates, her artificial or machine labor is equal to that of 
200,000,000 able bodied laborers ; which gives to her a power to create 
wealth ten times greater than that of the United States. Facts will 
show that these views are not imaginary. 

The revenue of the United Kingdom reached, in 1822, the vast 
amount of £55,000,000 sterling, or nearly $245,000,000 ; eleven times 



SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 327 

that of the United States during the same year. The prosperous con- 
dition of her commerce equally denotes her immense riches. The 
average of three years' exports ending in 1789, was upwards of 
£13,000,000 sterling, and of her imports, £17,000,000. The average of 
the exports for three years ending in 1822, was £40,000,000, and of im- 
ports £36,000,000; showing a balance of trade in her favor of 
£4,000,000, or about $20,000,000. Thus, from the time of the estab- 
lishment of our constitution, have the exports of that kingdom been 
tripled, and mainly by the power of machinery. The average of he? 
tonnage during the most flourishing period of the war, was 2,400,00 3 
tons. Its average during the three years, 1819, 1820, and 1821, w a 
2,600,000 tons. 

A glance at some of the articles of her manufactures, said Mr. CI y, 
would aid us in comprehending the nature of the sources of her riches. 
The amount of cotton fabrics exported during the most prosperous year 
of the war, was about £18,000,000 sterling. In 1820, it was 
£16,600 000; in 1821, £20,500,000 ; in 1822, £21,639,000 ; orupwards 
of $96,000,000. The total amount of her imports of cotton wool from 
all foreign parts, was £5,000,000 sterling. After supplying the consump- 
tion of fabrics within the country, she gives, by means of her industry, 
to this cotton wool a new value, which enables her to sell to foreign 
nations to the amount of £21,639,000; making a clear profit of about 
£16,500,000, or more than $73,000,000 ! In 1821, the value of her ex 
ports of woolen manufactures was £4,300,000; in 1822, £5,500,000. 

Of the wealth annually produced in Great Britain, the agricultural 
portion is said, by the gentleman from Virginia, to be greater than that 
created by any other branch of her industry. But that flows mainly 
from a policy similar to that proposed by this bill. One-third only of 
her population is engaged in agriculture; the other two-thirds furnishing 
a market for the produce of that third. Withdraw this market, and 
what becomes of her agriculture ? 

The protecting policy of Great -Britain is adapted alike to a state of 
war and a state of peace. Self-poised, resting upon her own internal re- 
sources, possessing a home market carefully cherished and guarded, she 
is prepared for any emergency. We have seen her coming out of a war 
of incalculable exertion and long duration, with her power unbroken, her 
means undiminished. Almost every revolving year of peace has brought 
with it an increase of her manufactures, of her commerce, and, conse- 
quently, of her navigation. Constructing her prosperity upon the solid 
foundation of her own protecting policy, it is unaff'ccted by the vicis- 
situdes of other states. 

What is our condition ? Depending upon the state of foreign powers 



328 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

— confiding in a foreign, to the neglect of a domestic policy — our in 
tercsts are affected by all their movements. Their wars, their mis- 
fortunes, are the source of our prosperity. Our system is anomalous; 
Unfitted either to general tranquility, or to a state of war or peace on our 
own part. It can succeed only in the rare occurrence of a general war 
throughout Europe. 

Mr. Clay proceeded to answer the numerous objections that had been 
made against the bill. 

1. It was designed to tax one part of the community for the benefit 
of another. To this it was replied, that no man paid the duty assessed 
on the foreign article by compulsion. Consumption had four objects of 
choice: (1.) It might abstain from the use of the foreign article, and 
thus avoid the tax; or, (2.) employ the rival American fabric; or, (3.) 
engage in the business of manufacturing, which the bill is designed to 
foster ; or, (4.) supply itself from the household manufactures. 

It had been said that the south, owing to the character of a certain 
portion of its population, could not engage in manufacturing. He did 
not agree in that opinion to the extent asserted. But if true, ought the 
interests of the greater and freer part to be made to bend to the condi- 
tion of the servile part of our population ? And should we persist in 
the foreign policy, and make all other parts tributary to the planting 
parts? But although the south should not embark in manufacturing, 
its interest would be promoted by a new source of supply for its con- 
sumption, as well as an additional market for its raw material. Now, 
foreign countries — Great Britain principally — have the monopoly in 
supplying southern consumption. If this bill should pass, an American 
competitor would be raised up, and the south would be cheaper and 
better supplied. 

2. The amount of our exports, it is said, will be diminished ; because, 
if we do not buy of Europe, she will not buy of us. He had already 
said, that, except tobacco and rice, we send to Europe nothing but raw 
materials. The effect of the bill will be to diminish the imports of those 
articles only which it will enable us to manufacture for ourselves ; leav- 
ing Europe free to supply ns with any other produce of their industry. 
The export of cotton wool to Great Britain will probably be some- 
what diminished. He had stated that Britain buys cotton wool to the 
amount of £5,000,000 sterling, and sells abroad of the article in a manu- 
factured state, £21,500,000; of which we receive a little upwards of 
£1,500,000. The residue of £20,000,000 she will continue to sell to 
other foreign powers, the raw material for which she must obtain from 
us, because we can supply her cheaper and better than any other coun- 
try. While, therefore, the diminution of the export of the rcw cotton 



SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER, 329 

would be only as one and a half to twenty, its value would be greatly 
aiultiplied by a new application of our industry, and tlius increase the 
imount of our exports. Our cotton manufactures, to a considerable 
amount, already find a sale in foreign markets. 

3. It was objected that the tariff would diminish our navigation. 
This, though a great interest, and deserving encouragement, was not a 
paramount interest, and ought to accommodate itself to the state of 
agriculture and manufactures. There would be no sensible diminution 
of our present exports to Europe ; and as the new direction given to a 
portion of our industry would produce new objects of exportation, our 
foreign tonnage would probably be even increased. But although it 
should experience a slight reduction, the increase of our coasting ton- 
nage, resulticig from the greater activity of domestic exchanges, would 
more than compensate the injury. 

4. It was contended that this measure would diminish our foreign 
commerce. The new productions, or the value given to old objects of 
industry, said Mr. C, would give to commerce a fresh spring, a new ali- 
ment. The foreign commerce had already been extended as far as it 
could be ; the balance of trade was, and had for some time been against 
us ; and some measure was necessary to render our foreign exchanges 
more favorable. Mr. Clay was surprised to hear the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) reject, as an exploded fallacy, the idea 
of a balance of trade. He had not time now to discuss that topic, but 
would observe, that all nations acted upon the supposition of the reality 
of its existence, and sought to avoid a trade the balance of which was 
against them, and to foster that which presented a favorable balance. 
An unfavorable balance with one nation might be made up by a favor- 
able balance with other nations ; but the fact of the existence of that 
unfavorable balance was strong presumptive evidence against the trade. 
Commerce, it had been said, would regulate itself. But was it not the 
duty of wise governments to watch its course, and by prudent legisla- 
tion to stimulate the industry of their own people, and to check the 
policy of foreign powers ? 

5. An ;ther objection to the tariff was, that it would diminish the 
public revenue, and compel us to resort to internal taxation to pay the 
public debt. This objection presupposed a reduction of the importation 
of the articles subjected to increased duties. It was believed that the 
augmentation of the duties would compensate for the diminution of the 
quantities imported. Some articles would continue to be imported as 
largely as ever. 

6. Again, it was objected, that capital and labor would be forced into 
.aew and reluctant employments, for which we were not prepared, in con- 



330 ?HE AMERICAN -TATESMAN. 

sequence of the high price of labor. The existing occupations were 
already overflowing with competitors ; and the very object of the bill 
was to open a new field of business, into which all that should choose 
might enter. The alleged fact of the high price of wages was not admit- 
ted. No class of society were suffering more than the laboring class. 
This was a necessary effect of the depression of agriculture, the principal 
business of the community. Able-bodied men could be employed for 
five to eight dollars a month. He agreed with the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia, that high wages are a proof of national prosperity; they differed 
only in the means of attaining the end. Natural labor is so inconsider- 
able an element in the business of manufacture, as to render the fact of 
high wages of small account. It had been foretold that our restrictive 
commercial policy would disappoint our expectations. But it had been 
successful ; as was evident from the share which our navigation enjoy- 
ed in the trade with France and the British West India islands. 

7. But it had been said, that, where circumstances are favorable to 
manufactures, they will arise without protection. If all nations w-»-M 
modify their policy on this axiom, perhaps it would be better tor tne 
common good of the whole. But even then, in consequence of natural 
advantages and a greater advance in civilization and the arts, some 
nations would enjoy a higher degree of prosperity than othe''.? If 
asked why unprotected industry should not succeed in a stnigglt; with 
protected industry, it was sufiicient to answer, that the fact had ever 
been so — that uniform ExrERiENCE evinced that it could not succeed 
in such an unequal contest. If, however, he were to attempt to par- 
ticularize causes, he would mention, (1.) the obduracy of fixed habits — • 
the reluctance of men to change their course of business; (2.) the un- 
certainty and fluctuation of the home market, when free to an influx of 
fabrics from all nations ; and (3.) the superior advance of skill -aA 
amount of capital which some nations have obtained by the protect -on 
of their own industry. 

8. But, it was said, admitting the policy of protection to be expedient, 
the measure of protection had already been suflGicienth extended. Most of 
the existing duties had been laid with a view to revenue, rather than to the 
encouragement of domestic i: -'ustry. A'-.LOugh the incidental effect of 
them was to promote our manufactures, ,aey fell short of competent 
protection, and needed a moderate addition. 

9. Again, it was asserted, that the restricting policy was condemned 
by the wisdom of Europe, and by her most enlightened statesmen. Mr. 
Clay denied this assertion. The few instances of partial relaxation to 
which reference had been made, and to which Great Britain had beeq 
impelled by interest or necessity, did not prove her abandonment of tho 



SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 331 

system. But supposing it to be true, would that prove it iimise for us 
to adopt the protecting system? In England its purpose had been 
accomplished. It was upon this ground that some of her writers recom- 
mended its abandonment. Her manufactures having become established, 
freedom of trade with other nations whose arts were yet in their infancy, 
would, it was supposed, only give wider scope to British industry and 
enterprise. It would extend the consumption of British produce to 
other countries. She had not, however, adopted the theories of philo- 
sophical writers, which, wherever adopted, brought with them impover- 
ishment and ruin. Spain afforded a striking proof of the sad effects 
upon a nation, of its neglecting the care of its own internal industry. 
Her prosperity was greatest when the arts, brought there by the Moors, 
flourished most in that kingdom. Then she received from England her 
wool, and returned it in a manufactured state ; and then England was 
least prosperous. 

10. It was objected, also, that the manufacturing system tended to 
the accumulation of large capitals in a few hands, and the consequent 
corruption of public morals. This objection would equally apply to 
every lucrative business. Immense fortunes had been acquired by com- 
merce at the north, and by planting at the south. The laws of distribu- 
tion in this country, and the absence of the English rule of primogeni- 
ture, would check the accumulation of large fortunes ; and the extent 
and fertility of our lands were a sufficient safeguard against excess in 
manufactures, and against the oppression, by capitalists, of the laboring 
classes of the community. The best security against the demoralization 
of society was the constant and profitable employment of its members. 

11. And still another objection was, that the bill was unconstitu- 
tional. Whether an attempt was made to provide for internal improve- 
ments ; or to protect American industry against foreign rivalry, the 
constitution stood in our way. This constitution must be a singular 
instrument ! It seemed to have been made for any other people than 
our own. Revenue was doubtless the principal object of the power to 
lay duties and imposts. In executing this power, however, the duties 
might be so laid as to secure domestic interests. But the power " to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations" is unlimited. It implies the 
power to admit or exclude any article of trade, or to prescribe the terms 
of its admission. Under this power laws had been passed entirely pro- 
hibiting all intercourse with foreign nations. And these laws — embar- 
goes — had received the approbation of men who now denied to congress 
the right to exercise this power for the purpose of protection. 

Mr. Webster considered the picture of distress drawn by Mr. Clay, 
as unwarranted by the real condition of the country. He admitted that 



332 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

there was a considerable depression of prices, and in some degree a stag- 
nation of business ; but in the eastern states, where he was most ac- 
(juainted, the means of living were accessible and abundant, and labor 
was well rewarded. Profits, indeed, were low; in some pursuits of life, 
very low : but he had not seen any proofs of extraordinary distress. 

In judging of this question, even from the proofs to which reference 
had been made, they would probably come to a conclusion diflPerent from 
that which had been drawn. Our exports, for example, although less 
than in some years, were not, last year, much below an average formed 
from the exports of a series of years. The speaker had taken the 
extraordinary exports of the year 1803, and made them the basis of 
calculating the amount which they ought to have reached, in order to 
exhibit an increase corresponding to the increase of our population. Of 
the article of flour, there was an export that year of 1,300,000 barrels; 
but the next year it fell to 800,000, and the next to 700,000 barrels. 
But it was not to be expected that the increase of agricultural exports 
would keep pace with the increase of population. It was against all 
experience. 

As m tins of judging of the general condition of the people, Mr. 
Webster mentioned the quantity of means of subsistence consumed, or 
the quantity of the comforts of life enjoyed; the progress of internal 
improvements ; and the increasing amount annually paid for purposes of 
education. In some parts of the country, he admitted, there was a great 
tlegree of pecuniary embarrassment, arising from the difficulty of paying 
debts contracted when prices were high. The depression of prices he 
ascribed to the restoration of a state of peace. The wars in Europe 
and our own country, had caused a great demand for the commodities of 
trade, the prices of which had been raised from the lowest to the highest 
extreme. The large issues of bank paper had contributed to this result. 
A depreciated currency existed in a great part of the country ; depre- 
ciated to such an extent as to raise the exchange between the center and 
the north as high as 20 per cent. The bank of the United States had 
been instituted to correct this evil ; but for certain causes, it did not, for 
some years, bring back the currency to a sound state. This depreciation 
was so much added to the nominal prices of commodities ; and these 
high prices seemed to those who looked only at the appearance, to indi- 
cate prosperity. At length prices fell, and from the effects of this fall 
the country had not yet fully recovered. 

In seeking a remedy for existing evils, Mr. Webster said, we were 
bound to see that there was a fitness in the measures proposed ; and 
Dcfore we adopted a system that professed to make great alterations, wo 
.jhould look carefully to each leading interest of the community, and see 



SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 333 

how it miglit be affected by our proposed legislation. Our commerce 
was not ecjoyiug that rich harvest which fell to its fortune during the 
European wars. Still, it seemed capable of recovering itself in some 
measure from its depression. The shipping interest had suffered still 
more severely ; and it was astonishing that the navigation of the United 
States should sustain itself. Without government protection, it chal- 
lenged competition with the whole world ; and, in spite of all obstacles, 
it had yet been able to maintain 800,000 tons in the employment of 
foreign trade. This was done, not by protection and bounties, but by 
unwearied exertion, by extreme economy, by that resolute spirit which 
relies on itself for protection. The navigation of the country was essen- 
tial to its honor and its defense. Yet, in this hour of its depression, it 
was proposed to lay upon it new and heavy burthens. 

In discussing the proposed duty on tallow for the benefit of the oil 
merchants and whalemen, strong statements had been made of the 
importance of that portion of our shipping employed in the whale fishery. 
But the same bill proposed a severe tax upon that interest for the bene- 
fit of the iron manufacturer and the hemp grower. So that the tallow 
chandlers and soap boilers were to be sacrificed to the oil merchants, that 
these again may contribute to the manufacturers of iron and the growers 
of hemp. 

In the next place, what was the condition of our home manufactures ? 
Did they need farther protection ? He was in favor of protecting 
domestic industry ; all domestic industry was not confined to manufac- 
tures. Agriculture, commerce, and navigation, were all branches of the 
same domestic industry ; and the question was, whether the proposed new 
encouragement to particular manufactures was necessary, and whether it 
could be given without injustice to other branches of industry. One 
great object proposed was the increase of the home market for the con- 
sumption of agricultural products ; but what provisions of the bill were 
expected to produce this, was not stated. Some increase of home market 
might follow from the adoption of the bill ; but all its provisions had 
not equal tendency to produce this effect. Its provisions should there- 
fore be singly and severally examined. Some of them were probably 
acceptable to the general sense of the house. These might be passed 
into a law, and others left to be decided upon their own merits. 

Mr. Webster then adverted to some other general topics. Much had 
been heard of the policy of England ; and her example had been urged, 
as proving, not only the expediency of encouragement and protection, 
but also of exclusion and prohibition. He had the other day remarked, 
that more liberal notions were becoming prevalent on this subject; that 
the policy of restraints and prohibitions was getting out of repute, as 



h 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



the true nature of commerce became better ucderstood ; and that the 
most distinguisbed public men were most decided in their reprobation 
of the restrictive principle. But it had again been declared, that the 
English government still adhered to its old doctrines ; and that, although 
journalists, theorists, and scientific writers advance other doctrines, the 
practical men, the legislatures, the government, are too wise to follow 
them. It had even been hinted, that the promulgation of liberal opinions 
was intended only to delude other nations into the folly of liberal ideas, 
while England retained to herself the benefits of the old system. 

He had never said that prohibitory laws did not exist in England ; 
but the question was, did she owe her prosperity to these laws ? He 
ventured to say, that such was not the opinion of public men now in 
England; and the continuance of the laws, even without alteration, 
would not be evidence that their opinion was not as he had represented 
it. The laws having existed long, and great interests -having been built 
up on the faith of them, they could not now be repealed without great 
inconvenience. Because a thing had been wrongly done, it did not fol- 
low that it could now be undone ; and for this reason prohibition and 
monopoly were suffered to remain in the English system. Mr. W. here 
read extracts from speeches of several members of parliament in favor 
of the general principle of unrestricted trade. One of the speakers 
observed, that he believed England had risen to her present greatness, 
" not in consequence of her present system, but in spite of it." 
Another remarked, that " the name of strict prohibition might, in com- 
merce, be got rid of altogether; but he did not see the same objection 
to protecting duties, which, while they admitted the introduction of com- 
modities from abroad, similar to those which we ourselves manufactured, 
placed them so much on a level as to allow a competition between them." 

Protection, when carried to the point recommended, seemed to him 
(Mr. W.) destructive of all intercourse between nations. "We were 
urged to adopt the system upon general principles. He did not admit the 
general principle ; freedom of trade was the general principle, and 
restriction the exception. And it was for every state, taking into 
view its own condition, to judge of the propriety, in any case, of making 
an exception, constantly preferring, as all wise governments would, not 
to depart, without urgent reasons, from the general rule. 

He next spoke of the warehouse system, usually called in this coun- 
try, the system of dr?wback. Wo seemed averse to the extension of 
this principle. England, on the contrary, appeared to have carried it 
to the extreme of liberality. The present opinions and practice of her 
government, however, had been attained by slow degrees. The transit 
system was commenced about the year 1803 ; but the first law was par- 



SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 335 

tial and limited. It admitted the importation of raw materials for 
exportation ; but it excluded almost every sort of manufactured goods. 
This was done for the same reason that we proposed to prevent the 
transit of Canadian wheat through the United States — the fear of aidin"' 
the competition of the foreign article with our own, in foreign markets. 
But reflection or experience had induced the British government to con- 
sider all such means of influencing foreign markets as nugatory ; since 
nations will supply themselves from the best sources : and the true 
policy of all producers, whether of raw materials or of manufactured 
articles, was, not vainly to endeavor to keep other venders out of mar- 
ket, but to conquer them in it, by the quality and the cheapness of their 
goods. The present policy of England, he said, was to invite the 
importation of commodities, to be deposited in English warehouses, thence 
to be exported in assorted cargoes, and thus enabling her to carry on a 
general export trade to all quarters of the globe. Articles of all kinds, 
except tea, may be brought from any part of the world, in foreign as 
well as British ships, warehoused, and again exported at pleasure, with- 
out any duty or government charge whatever. 

Mr. W. also noticed the recent proposition in parliament to abolish 
the tax on imported wool. It was observable, he said, that those who 
supported this proposition, gave the same reasons as had been ofi'ered here, 
within the last week, against the duty which we proposed on the same 
article. They said their manufacturers required a cheap and coarse 
wool for the supply of the Mediterranean and Levant trade ; and without 
a more free admission of the wool of the continent, that trade would fall 
into the hands of the Germans and Italians, who would carry it on 
through Leghorn and Trieste. While there was this duty on foreign 
wool to protect the wool growers of England, there was, on the other 
hand, a prohibition on the exportation of the native article, in aid of the 
manufacturers. The opinion seemed to be gaining strength, that the 
true policy was to abolish both. Whether, therefore, the present policy 
of England were right or wrong, wise or unwise, it could not, he thought, 
be quoted as authority for carrying farther the restrictive system, in 
regard either to manufactures or trade. 

On the subject of the " balance of trade," Mr. W. dissented from the 
popular notion, that because the imports of a nation exceeded its exports ; 
in other words, if it buys more than it sells, the balance of trade is 
unfavorable. He maintained, that the excess of imports over exports 
usually showed the gains, not the losses of trade, because the value of 
the goods imported was augmented by the labor of transportation. The 
difi'ereuce between the value of the imports and exports consisted of the 
profits of commerce, and the earnings of navigation. It was clear, that, 



336 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

.'f the value of the commodities imported in a given case, did not exceed 
the value of the outward cargo with which they were purchased, the 
voyage was unprofitable. According to the doctrine of the balance of 
trade, although one individual or all individuals gain, the nation loses ; 
while all its citizens grow rich, the country grows poor. 

These notions had their origin in mistaken ideas of the true nature 
of commerce. Commerce was not a gambling between nations for a 
stake, to be won by some and lost by others. It might be carried on to 
the mutual advantage of all parties. Individuals made interchanges to 
the benefit of both. So nations producing different commodities, might 
exchange with each other, and both profit by the exchange. It did not 
follow, therefore, that our receiving from any country more of her pro- 
ducts than she received of ours, was to us a losing trade. 

Connected with this topic was another which had been brought into 
the debate; an evil much complained of — the exportation of specie. 
Gentlemen had imputed the loss of market at home to a want of money, 
and this want of money to the exportation of the precious metals. The 
India and China trade had been denounced, because the products of 
those countries were purchased with gold and silver. This opinion was 
without just foundation. These articles were of use, and articles of 
merchandise, with this additional circumstance, that they were made, by 
the general consent of nations, the standard by which the value of all 
other merchandise was to be estimated. There might be too much or 
too little of them in a country at a particular time, as there might be 
of any other articles. When the market was overstocked with them, 
their exportation became as proper and as useful as that of other com- 
modities, under similar circumstances. There was no more cause foi' 
repining when the dollars received from South America were sent to 
other countries than when cofi"ee and sugar took that direction. Wff 
often deceived ourselves by attributing to a scarcity of money tha'^ 
which is the result of other causes. 

A member from Pennsylvania had represented the country full of 
every thing but money. The agricultural products, so abundant in that 
state, would not sell for money. But they would sell for money as 
quick as for any other article that happened to be in demand. They 
would sell for money as easily as for coffee or for tea, at the prices which 
properly belong to those articles. The mistake was in imputing to the 
want of money what arises from want of demand. Men do not buy 
wheat because they have money, but because they want wheat. To 
decide whether money is plenty or not, that is, whether there is a large 
portion of capital unemployed or not, when the currency is metallic, wo 
must look not only to the prices of commodities, but also to the rate of 



SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 337 

interest. A low rate of interest, a facility of obtaining money on loans, 
a disposition to invest in permanent stocks, all of -wlucli are proofs that 
money is abundant, do not infallibly denote a state of the highest pros- 
perity. They often show a want of employment for capital ; and the 
accumulation of specie shows the same thing. We have no occasion for 
the precious metals as money, except for the purpose of circula- 
tion, or rather of sustaining a safe paper circulation. And when- 
ever there is a prospect of a profitable investment abroad, all the 
gold and silver, except what these purposes require, will be exported. 
So if a demand existed abroad for sugar and coffee, whatever amount 
of these articles might exist in the country beyond the wants of its own 
consumption, would be sent abroad to meet that demand. 

The high rate of exchange, too, had been referred to as a proof that 
we were on the downward road to ruin. The speaker, (Mr. Clay,) him- 
self had adverted to that topic; and he, (Mr. W.,) feared such high 
authority might give credit to opinions clearly unfounded, and leading to 
wrong conclusions. Exchange on England, before the late rise, had been 
about seven and a half per cent, advance. What did this prove? No- 
thing, but that funds were wanted in England for commercial opera- 
tions, to be carried on there or elsewhere. It did not necessarily show that 
we were indebted to England. Even if it did prove that a balance was 
due England, at the moment, it would not explain to us whether our 
commerce with that country had been profitable or unprofitable. But it 
was not true that the real price of exchange was seven and a half per cent, 
advance ; nor, indeed, that there was any advance at all. It was not true 
that merchants would give such an advance, or any advance, for money 
in England, more than they would give for the same amount, in the same 
currency, here. If there were a real difference of seven and a half per 
cent., money would be immediately shipped to England: because the 
expense of transportation would be far less than that difference. 

The true state of exchange between the two countries, was to be 
ascertained by looking at their currencies, and by comparing the quanti- 
ties of gold and silver which they respectively represented. The Eng- 
lish standard of value was gold. Ours was gold and silver at a fixed 
relation to each other. But our estimate of silver was higher, in pro- 
portion to gold, than England and most other nations give it : conse- 
quently silver, a legal currency with us, remained here, while gold had 
gone abroad ; verifying the universal truth, that, if two currencies 
of different values are allowed to exist, the cheapest will fill up the 
whole circulation. For the gold that would suffice to pay here a debt 
of a given amount, we could buy in England more silver than would be 
necessary to pay the same debt here ; and from this difference in the 

22 



338 THE AMERICAN STATESMA f. 

value of silver arose wholly, or in a great measure, tlic apparent differ- 
ence in exchange. The Spanish dollar was selling in England for four 
shillings and nine pence sterling per ounce, equal to one dollar and six 
cents. By our standard, the same ounce was worth one dollar and six- 
teen cents • being a difference of about nine per cent. Hence if the 
nominal advance on EnglisTi bills did not exceed nine per cent., the real 
exchange would not be against this country ; in other words, it did not 
show that there was any pressing or particular occasion for the remit- 
tance of funds to England. 

Mr. Webster proceeded to state some objections of a more general 
nature to the course of the speaker's observations. He had argued the 
question as if all domestic industry were confined to the production of 
manufactured articles. Some other gentleman had spoken of the price 
paid for every foreign manufactured article, as so much given for the en- 
couragement of foreign labor, to the prejudice of our own. But was it 
not the product of our own labor as truly as if we had manufactured it 
ourselves ? One man makes a yard of cloth at home ; another raises 
agricultural products, and buys a yard of imported cloth. Both are the 
earnings of domestic industry ; and the only questions arising in the case 
are two: (1.) Which is the best mode, under all circumstances, of ob- 
taining the article ? (2.) How far should this question be decided by 
government, and how far left to individual discretion ? 

It had been asked what nations had ever attained eminent prosperity 
without encouraging manufactures. He asked, in reply, what nation had 
ever reached the like prosperity without promoting foreign trade. These 
interests were closely connected, and it should be our aim to cause them 
to flourish together. Most of our revenue being collected by duties on 
imports, we could, without exceeding the bounds of moderation, give 
groat advantages to those manufactures which we might think it most use- 
ful to promote at home. But he objected to the immoderate use of the 
power ; by which labor would be diverted from occupations in which it 
was profitably employed, to others in which it would be poorly rewarded- 
He apprehended many would be deprived of their employments ; and 
they would find the prices of the commodities they needed, enhanced, in 
any of the alternatives the speaker had presented. He had told us, 
they might, if they chose, continue to buy the foreign article. But the 
price has been raised. They might use the domestic article. The price 
of that also has been increased. Let them then supply themselves with 
their own fabric. But how could the agriculturist make his own iron, or 
the ship owner grow his own hemp ? 

He objected also to the speaker's reasoning, that he had argued the 
question as if manufactures were now, for the first time, to receive en- 



SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 33Sl 

couragement. He had adopted the modes of expression xiscd elsewhere, 
and asked if we would give our manufacturers no protection. The real 
question was, not whether duties should be laid, but whether they should 
be augmented. It was forgotten that iron and hemp, for example, 
already paid a burdensome duty ; yet, from the general tenor of the 
speaker's observations, one would infer that we had hitherto taxed our 
own manufactures rather than fostered them by taxes on those of other 
countries. 

The poverty of Spain had been attributed to the want of protection 
to her own industry. That it was owing to bad government and bad 
laws was true. But these very laws were bad because they were re- 
strictive. If prohibition were protection, Spain would seem to have had 
enough of it. Nothing could exceed the barbarous rigidity of her colo 
nial system, or the folly of her early commercial regulations. Unen 
lightened and bigoted legislation, the multitude of her holidays, miser- 
able roads, and restrictive laws, he believed had been the principal 
causes of the bad state of her productive industry. And any partial 
improvement in her condition had been the result of relaxation. 

Mr. Webster next went into an examination of the bill as to its 
probable effects upon some of the great interests of the country ; and 
first, as to the foreign trade. It was lamentably true, as the speaker had 
stated, that there had been a falling off in the tonnage employed in that 
trade. What did the bill propose for relief? Nothing but new burdens 
It proposed to diminish its employment, and at the same time to aug 
ment its expense by subjecting it to heavier taxation. The shipping in- 
terest, as appeared from a statement he had submitted to the committee, 
paid annually more than half a million of dollars in duties on articles 
used in the construction of ships ; to which it was proposed to add nearly 
fifty per cent. 

Some of the clauses of the bill Mr. W. approved ; to others he 
strongly objected ; and most of all, to that which proposed to raise the 
duty on iron, an article of great importance to the shipping interest, 
which he represented. The annual consumption of the article had been 
estimated at 50,000 tons ; the duty on which, at $15 per ton, amounted 
to $750,000 ; increasing by so much the price of an absolute necessary 
of life. It was now proposed to raise the duty to $22,50 per ton, which 
would be equal to $1,125,000 on the whole annual consumption. The 
only mitigation of this burthen imposed for the benefit of the producert 
of the article, was in the prospect that the price of iron would be re- 
duced by this domestic competition after the importation should be pro 
hibited. But it was easy to show that it would not fall ; and the rcsuh 
would be, that the $1,125,000 would be constantly augmented by the in- 



340 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

creased consumption of the article, to support a business that could not 
support itself. It was of no consequence to the argument that this sum 
would be expended at home : so it would be if the people were taxed to 
support any other useless and expensive establishment. 

The price of iron at Stockholm was $53 ; to which add the duty of 
$15, and as much more for freight, insurance, &e., and the cost would be 
$83 in the American market. But the price at the mine in which it was 
produced, was only about $40 per ton ; so that the present duty, with 
the expense of transportation, already gave the American manufacturer 
an advantage of 100 per cent. Why, then, could not iron be manufac- 
tured at home ? The answer was to be found in the different prices of 
labor. Tlicse were higher here than in any other civilized state ; and 
this fact was the greatest of all proofs of general happiness. We had 
been asked whether we would allow to the serfs of Russia and Sweden 
the benefit of making iron for us. He would inform the gentleman that 
these serfs did not earn more than seven cents a day. And he asked 
whether we had any labor in this country that could not be better em- 
ployed than in a business yielding to the laborer only seven cents a day. 
There was no reason for saying that we would work iron because we had 
mountains that contained ore. He said the true inquiry was, whether 
we could produce the article at the same, or nearly the same cost as that 
at which we could import it. The reason why our citizens should not be 
compelled to manufacture our own iron was, that they were far better 
employed. It was an unproductive business ; and they were not poor 
enough to be obliged to follow it. 

The effect of the bill in its operation on hemp, was also considered. 
The aggregate amount of duties on the hemp and iron used in the con- 
struction of a vessel of 359 tons burthen, was stated to be $1056 ; and, 
with the contemplated increase, it would be $1400. While we were pro- 
posing to add new burthens to the shipping interest, our great commer- 
cial and maritime rival was pursuing a very different line of policy. It 
was the sentiment of the government of England, that the first of all 
manufactures was the manufacture of ships ; and very important regu- 
lations favorable to this interest had been adopted within the last year. 

Mr. W. concluded by saying, that there were some parts of the bill 
which he highly approved ; that in others he acquiesced ; but that those 
to which he had stated his objections appeared to him so destitute of all 
justice, so burthensome and so dangerous to that interest which had 
steadily enriched, gallantly defended, and proudly distinguished us, that 
nothing could prevail upon him to give the bill his support. 



ELECTION OF MR. ADAMS. 341 



CHAPTEK XXV. 

ELECTION OF MR. ADAMS.— -THE ALLEGED COALITION BETWEEN ADAMS AND 
CLAY. PROPOSITIONS FOR RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 

The presidential election of 1824 was one of deep and general interest 
throughout the union. The names of at least six candidates had been 
presented : Messrs. Adams, Crawford, Jackson, Clay, Calhoun, and 
Clinton. The names of the two last, however, were subsequently with- 
drawn. 

The practice which had prevailed since 1804, of making nominations 
by the republican members of congress, had become unpopular. The 
original and legitimate object of a caucus was to enable the friends of 
certain principles or measures to concentrate their suffrages. For such 
purpose a caucus had become unnecessary. All the candidates were 
regarded as republicans, and as holding to the same general principles. 
Old party lines, as respected measures of public policy, had become 
obliterated. The people were not so much divided upon measures, as 
in the choice of men. And when political contests are merely for men, 
caucuses are likely to become instruments of corruption and intrigue. 
It was also objected, that, as the public sentiment in some of the states 
had designated certain individuals as candidates, the members of a con- 
gressional caucus might defeat the wishes of their constituents. And 
although it was desirable to avoid a resort to the house of representa- 
tives for the election of a president, the candidates were so numerous, 
and the attachment of the people to their respective favorites was so 
firm, as to preclude the belief that a caucus nomination would at all 
increase the chances of an election by the people. The object of a 
caucus was the nomination of Mr. Crawford ; which had few advocates 
beyond the circle of his particular friends. 

Not only was the public feeling on this subject expressed in meetings 
of the people ; formal action was taken upon it by the legislatures of 
several of the states, whose decisions were communicated to their repre- 
sentatives in congress. The newspaper press, too, took an active part 
in the discussion. A leading paper opposed to a caucus, was Niles' 
Register. The National Intelligencer, the Albany Argus, and the 
Richmond Enquirer, were among its prominent advocates. 

A caucus, or, as it was termed. " a meeting of the republican mem- 
bers of congress," was held on the 14th of February, 1824. Of the 
258 members, only 68 attendol. The number in attendance being so 



342 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

small, a motion was made to adjourn to the 20tli of March; hut, a 
majority being opposed to the adjournment, the meeting proceeded to 
ballot for a candidate for president. Of the 68 votes given, Wm. H. 
Crawford received 64 ; John Quincy Adams, 2; Andrew Jackson, 1; 
and Nathaniel Macon, 1. For vice-president, Albert Gallatm received 
57 votes. 

From a brief history of congi >ssional caucuses in Niles' Register, 
(vol. XXV, pp. 244, 258,) the following facts appear : 

In February, 1800, " certain federalists" — members of congress, it is 
presumed — held a meeting in the senate-chamber to consult on matters 
relating to the ensuing presidential election. This caucus was de- 
nounced in the Philadelphia Aurora, a republican paper, as a "jacobin- 
leal conclave;" for which, and for other statements, its editor, William 
Duane, was arrested, and brought to the bar of the senate to answer 
for his " false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious assertions," &c. 
Soon after, there was a meeting of a few members, who pledged them- 
selves to the support of Messrs. JeiFerson and Burr. This meeting is 
said to have been caused by a complaint on the part of northern repub- 
licans, that Mr. Burr had not been duly supported by the party at the 
south, in 1797. 

The first " regular republican caucus" appears to have been held on 
the 25th of February, 1804. Its chief object was to fix upon a candi- 
date for vice-president. Mr. Jefferson, however, was named for reelec- 
tion, and George Clinton for vice-president. 

On the 19th of January, 1808, a meeting of the republican members 
of congress to nominate candidates for president and vice-president, was 
called by Stephen R. Bradley, a senator from Vermont. The circular in 
which the call was made commenced thus : "In pursuance of the poivers 
vested in me, as president of the late convention of the republican mem- 
bers of both houses of congress, I deem it expedient," &c. The meeting 
was to be held on the 23d of January, 1808. The issuing of this call in 
this mandatory style, was indignantly denounced by several members as 
a usurpation of power ; and a large portion of the members refused to 
attend ; unwilling, as was remarked, " to countenance, by their presence, 
the midnight intrigues 'of any set of men who may arrogate to them- 
selves the right, (which belongs only to the people,) of selecting proper 
persons to fill the important offices of president and vice-president." 

The meeting was attended, however, by ninety-four members of both 
houses — only one from the state of New York. Mr. Madison waa 
nominated with apparent unanimity, though Mr. Monroe had been sup- 
ported, out of doors, by a stroug party of men, among whom were some 
who were unfriendly to the p ^licy of Mr. Jefferson. These differences 



ELECTION OF MR. ADAMS. 343 

in the republican party grew to such extent, as almost to produce the 
political ejection of Mr. Monroe; a fate actually experienced by De 
Witt Clinton four years afterward, for permitting his name to be used 
against that of Mr. Madison. Through the efforts of Mr. Jefferson and 
others, who deprecated a rupture in the party in the state of Virginia, 
a reconciliation was at length effected. 

The next congressional caucus was held on the 1 8th of May, 1812, 
at which 82 members attended ; the whole number of republican mem- 
bers of both houses being 133. All the votes given at this caucus were 
for Madison. The caucus of 1816 was held on the 16th of March, and 
was attended by 1 18 out of the 141 republican members. Mr. Clay, of 
Kentucky, and Mr. Taylor, of New York, offered resolutions declaring 
it inexpedient to proceed to a nomination ; but the proposition was 
negatived. Mr. Monroe received 65 votes, and Mr. Crawford, 54. In 
1820, no caucus was held — there being no organized opposition to the 
republican party. 

As had been apprehended, the nomination made by the caucus in 
1824, failed of securing to Mr. Crawford that advantage which former 
nominees had derived from regular republican nominations. So odious 
had this system become, that the nomination was believed to have actu- 
ally diminished rather than increased his strength as a candidate. 

The whole number of votes of the electoral colleges, was 261 ; of 
which there were given for Jackson 99, Adams 84, Crawford 41, Clay 37. 
John G. Calhoun received for vice-president 182 votes, against 78 for all 
others. The electors having failed to elect a president, that duty 
devolved upon the house of representatives ; the election to be made 
from the three candidates having the highest numbers of votes, and the 
vote to be taken by states. The election by the house took place on the 
9th of February, 1825, immediately after the canvass of the electoral 
vote. Mr. Adams received the votes of 13 states. General Jackson 7 
states, and Mr. Crawford 4 states. Mr. Adams having a majority of the 
states, he was declared elected for four years from the 4th of March, 1 825. 
A committee appointed by the house for that purpose, informed Mr. 
Adams of his election, and reported the fact to the house the next day, 
with the following answer : 

"Gentlemen : In receiving this testimonial from the representatives 
of the people and states of this union, I am deeply sensible of the circum- 
stances under which it has been given All my predecessors in the high 
station to which the favor of the house now calls me, have been honored 
with majorities of the electoral voices in their primary colleges. It has 
been my fortune t: be placed, by the divisions of sentiment prevailing 
among our countrymen on this occasion, in competition, friendly and 



34-4 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

lionorable, with three of my fellow-citizens, all justly enjoying, in emi- 
nent degrees, the public favor ; and of whose worth, talents, and sei vices 
no one entertains a higher and more respectful sense than myself. The 
names of two of them were, in the fulfillment of the provisions of the 
constitution, presented to the selection of the house, in concurrence with 
my own ; names closely associated with the glory of the nation, and one 
of them further recommended by a larger minority of the primary elec- 
toral suffrages than mine. 

" In this state of things, could my refusal to accept the trust thus dele- 
gated to me, give an immediate opportunity to express with a nearer 
approach to unanimity, the object of their preference, I should not hesi- 
tate to decline the acceptance of this eminent charge, and to submit the 
decision of this momentous question again to their determination. But 
the constitution itself, has not so disposed of the contingency which would 
arise in the event of my refusal ; I shall therefore repair to the post 
assigned me by the call of my country, signified through her constitu- 
tional organs ; oppressed with the magnitude of the task before me, but 
cheered with the hope of that generous support of my fellow-citizens, 
which, in the vicissitudes of a life devoted to their service, has never 
failed to sustain me — confident in the trust that the wisdom of the legis- 
lative councils will guide and direct me in the path of my official duty,- and 
relying, above all, upon the superintending providence of that Being ' in 
whose hand our breath is, and whose are all our ways.' 

" Grentlemen : I pray you to make acceptable to the house, the assur- 
ance of my profound gratitude for their confidence, and to accept your- 
selves my thanks for the friendly terms in which you have communicated 
to me their decision." 

John Quincy Adams was inaugurated as president of the United 
States, on the 4th of March, 1825. The senate being in session, the 
president immediately nominated his cabinet officers : Henry Clay, of 
Kentucky, for secretary of state ; Bichard Bush, for secretary of the 
treasury ; James Barbour, of Virginia^ for secretary of war. The nomi- 
nations of the two last named gentlemen were unanimously confirmed, 
that of Mr. Clay, for reasons which will soon appear, was warmly opposed. 
The vote was 27 in favor of his appointment, and 14 against it. Samuel 
L. Southard, of New Jersey, was continued secretary of the navy ; Wil- 
liam Wirt, of Virginia, then attorney-general, was also continued in 
office. The postmaster-general was not then a cabinet officer, The in- 
cumbent, John M'Lean, was retained in that office. 

With a cabinet composed of men so able and distinguished, it might 
be supposed that the new administration had commenced under the most 
favorable auspices, and could not fail to attain a high degree of popular- 



\ 



ALLEGED COALITibN BETWEEN ADAMS AND OLA'S. 3 45 

ity. It had, however, scarcely entered upon its career, before thure were 
unerring indications of a determined opposition. This opposition, so 
early formed, could not have been based upon the acts of the administra- 
tion. It had its origin chiefly in the disaffection of the friends of the 
unsuccessful candidates, increased, if not wholly produced, by the sus- 
picion of Mr. Adams having obtained his election by a bargain with Mr. 
Clay and his friends, who, it was alleged, had voted for him with the 
understanding that, in case of his election, Mr. Clay was to receive the 
appointment of secretary of state. 

The friends of G-eneral Jackson, having expected the votes of the 
western members for their candidate, expressed their indignation at the 
course of these members, and declared Messrs. Adams and Clay to have 
been parties to a " corrupt coalition" which had thwarted the will of the 
people. The election was soon followed by an excitement, which, for 
intensity and bitterness, has rarely been exceeded in this country. This 
important affair, involving as it does, the character of some of our most 
distinguished public men, deserves more than a passing notice. 

A few weeks prior to the election by the house of representatives, there 
appeared in the Columbian Observer, published in the city of Philadel- 
phia, a letter purporting to have been written by a member of the house 
of rej)resentatives belonging to the Pennsylvania delegation, and impli- 
cating the conduct of Mr. Clay in regard to the pending presidential 
election. The letter says : " For some time past, the friends of Clay 
have hinted that they, like the Swiss, would fight for those who would 
pay best. Overtures were said to have been made by the friends of 
Adams to the friends of Clay, offering him the appointment of secretary 
of state for his aid to elect Adams. And the friends of Clay gave this 
information to the friends of Jackson, and hinted that, if the friends of 
Jackson would offer the same price, they would close with them. But 
none of the friends of Jackson would descend to such mean barter and 
sale. * * * It is now ascertained to a certainty, that Henry Clay has 
transferred his interest to Mr. John Q. Adams. As a consideration for 
this abandonment of duty to his constituents, it is said and believed, 
should this unholy coalition prevail. Clay is to be appointed secretary 
of state." 

This letter was followed by " A Card" from Mr. Clay, repelling the 
accusation, pronouncing the member, whoever he might be, " a base and 
infamous calumniator," and holding him " responsible, if he dared un- 
veil himself, to all the laws which govern and regulate the conduct of 
men of honor." Whereupon, in " Another Card," George Kremer 
acknowledged the authorship of the letter, and declared himself ready 
to prove the statements therein contained. 



346 ' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mr. Clay, on the same day, (February 3,) called the attention of i.\e 
house to the subject, and requested an investigation of the charges. A 
committee was accordingly appointed for this purpose, although not until 
after two days' debate. On the 9th, the committee reported, that Kremer 
had declined appearing before them to give any evidence or explanation 
touching the charges against the speaker, alleging that he could not do 
so without appearing either as an accuser or a witness ; both of which he 
protested against. The committee, if they had known any reason for the 
investigation, would have asked for power to send for persons and papers; 
but having no such knowledge, they only laid before the house the letter 
of Mr. Kremer to the committee. 

On the 25th of February, Mr. Kremer appeared in an address to his 
constituents, stating the grounds of his charges against Mr. Clay ; among 
which were, (1.) Mr. Clay's disregard of the instruction of the legislature 
of Kentucky to vote for Gen. Jackson, contrary to his well known recog- 
nition of the right of the people to instruct their representatives, and of 
the obligation of the representative to obey the known will of his consti- 
tuents. (2.) He and his friends had, through the whole canvass for the 
presidenc}', been decidedly hostile to Mr. Adams' election. (3.) He had 
persuaded western members friendly to Gen. Jackson to remain uncom- 
mitted, and to agree to go together, before determining on the candidate 
they would finally support. (4.) A member from Kentucky had observed to 
him (Kremer) that if Jackson should be elected, Adams, it was said, would 
remain secretary of state ; and desired to know, if Clay and his friends 
should aid in electing Jackson, what Jackson would do for Kentucky. 
(5.) The office of secretary of state had been offered to him, and he had 
agreed to accept it. 

On the appearance of this letter in the Washington City Gazette, 
William Brent, a member from Louisiana, published in the National 
Journal a statement, confirmed by two other gentlemen who were pre- 
sent, that, on the day of the debate on the proposition to refer Mr. 
Clay's communication respecting Mr. Kremer's card to a committee, he 
heard K. declare that he never intended to charge Mr. Clay with cor- 
ruption or dishonor in his intended vote for Mr. Adams ; or that he had 
transferred, or could transfer, the votes or interest of his friends. This 
statement of Mr. Brent, together with certain other reasons, induced 
the belief, that he was not the writer of the communications bearing his 
signature ; and that he had been made an instrument for furthering the 
designs of others. Indeed, in an address " to the public," it was stated 
by Mr. F. Johnson, of Kentucky, on the authority of Mr. Crowninshield, 
of Massachusetts, in whose presence the acknowledgment had been 
made, that Mr K. ha ' not written the letter of the 25th of Januarj^ 



ALLEGED COALITION BETWEEN ADAMS AND CLAY. 347 

Mr. Clay, under date of Marcli 26, 1825, through the Natioual Jour- 
nal, addressed the people of the congressional district he had represented, 
in vindication of the course he had taken in the election. He said, the 
fact that one of the three candidates returned had received a plurality 
of the electoral votes, gave him no claim to the support of the house. 
The ■will of the 99 could not righfully control the remaining 162, nor 
any one of them : although it was a consideration which the house was 
called upon to weigh in making up its judgment. The precarious state 
of Mr. Crawford's health, the small number of votes he had received, and 
the impracticability of his election, were conclusive reasons against him. 
As between Gen. Jackson and Mr. Adams, the consideration of plurality 
was of less weight, and overbalanced by that of the superior fitness of 
the latter. 

The resolutions of the Kentucky legislature requesting the delegation 
from that state to vote for Gen. Jackson, though entitled to respect, 
were not to be regarded as binding. The legislature, though speaking 
in behalf of the people, had had no means of ascertaining their wishes 
since the electors were chosen, when they had decided against the gene- 
ral. Besides, he had received directly^ from many of his constituents, 
an expression of their disapprobation of the request of the legislature, 
with instructions to vote agreeably to his own judgment. 

That he bad not been in favor of Mr. Adams' election when the con- 
test was before the people, was true. Neither was he in favor of the 
election of Gen. Jackson or Mr. Crawford. But during his whole ac- 
quaintance with Mr. Adams, there had been no interruption to the 
courtesies and hospitalities of social intercourse. He (Mr. Clay,) was 
said to be under a public pledge to expose some reprehensible conduct 
of Mr. Adams in the negotiation at Ghent. The letter which he had 
published in 1822, adverting to the controversy between Mr, Russell 
and Mr. Adams, did not justify such a conclusion. He had ascribed to 
both parties, and particularly to Mr. Adams, " some errors, (no doubt 
unintentional,) both as to matters of fact and matters of opinion, in re- 
gard to the transactions at Ghent, relating to the navigation of the 
Mississippi, and certain liberties claimed by the United States in the 
fisheries, and to the part he (Mr. Clay,) bore in these transactions;" and 
promised " at some future period to lay before the public a narrative of 
those transactions as he understood them." As to the time of executing 
this promise, he claimed for himself the exclusive right to judge. He 
had never given Gen. Jackson or his friends any reason to expect his 
support j and no one ought to have been disappointed by his not having 
voted for him. 

The 1st session of the 19th congress, and the first under Mr. Adams* 



348 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

administration, commenced on the 5th of December, 1825. In the senate, 
the administration had a decided majority. In the house of representa- 
tives, the majority, if, indeed, there was any, was small, as was indicated 
by the vote on the choice of speaker; John W. Taylor, of New York, 
having been elected on the second ballot, by 99 votes against 94 for all 
other candidates. By the union, however, of the friends of Gen. Jackson 
and Mr. Crawford, in both houses, it was found difficult — in some cases 
impossible — to carry the measures of the administration. 

The introduction of certain extraordinary questions into both branches 
of congress, prevented the consideration of several important measures 
suggested in the president's message. One of these extraordinary sub- 
jects was a proposition, by Mr. Benton, to amend the constitution 
respecting the election of president and vice-president ; suggested, doubt- 
less, by the result of the recent election. The mode proposed was by a 
direct vote of the people, in districts. 

Mr. Benton also reported (March 1, 1826,) in favor of an amendment 
of the constitution, making members of congress ineligible to any civil 
office under the general government, during the presidential term in 
which they shall have served. Also as chairman of a select committee 
appointed " to inquire into the expediency of reducing the patronage of 
the executive government," he made a report, (May 4,) stating it as the 
conclusion of the committee, that the amount of patronage now exer- 
cised by the president, might and ought to be reduced by law, and pre- 
senting six bills for that purpose : (1.) A bill to regulate the laws of the 
United States, and of public advertisements. (2.) A bill to secure in 
office the faithful collectors and disbursers of the revenue, and to dis- 
place defaulters. (3, 4, and 5.) Bills to regulate the appointment of 
postmasters, cadets, and midshipmen. (6.) A bill to prevent military 
and naval officers from being dismissed the service at the pleasure of the 
president. 

The appointment, by Mr. Adams, of Mr. Clay and several other mem- 
bers of congress to important offices, and the withdrawing of the pat- 
ronage of the printing of the laws from some of the newspapers opposed 
to the administration, and bestowing it upon others that supported it, 
will sufficiently explain the object of these two last mentioned reports. 

The people alone being competent to change the constitution, the 
committee say : " Not being able to lay the axe at the root of the tree, 
they (congress) must go to pruning the limbs and branches. Not being 
able to reform the constitution in the election of president, they must go 
to work upon his powers, and trim down these by statutory enactments, 
wherever it can be done by law, and with a just regard to the efficiency 
of the government. * * # They (the committee) have only touched, 



PROPOSITIONS FOR RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 349 

in four places, the vast and pervading system of federal executive pat- 
ronage : the press — the post-ofl&ce — the armed force — and the appoint- 
ing power. They are few, compared to the whole number of points 
which the system presents ; but they are points vital to the liberties of 
the country. The press is put foremost, because it is the moving power 
of human action ; the post-office is the handmaid of the press ; the armed 
force its executor ; and the appointing power the directress of the whole. 
If the appointing power was itself an emanation of the popular will — if 
the president was himself the officer and the organ of the people — there 
would be less danger in leaving to his will the sole direction of all these 
arbiters of human fate. But things must be taken as they are ; states- 
men must act for the country they live in, and not for the island of 
Utopia; they must act upon the state of facts in that country, and not 
upon the visions of fancy. In the country for which the committee act, 
the press, with some exceptions, the post-office, the armed force, and tbe 
appointing power, are in the hands of the president, and the president 
himself is not in the hands of the people. The president may, and in 
the current of human affairs/.will be, against the people ; and, in his 
hands, the arbiters of human fate must be against them also. This will 
not do. The possibility of it must be avoided. The safety of the peo- 
ple is the ' supreme law;' and to insure that safety, these arbiters of 
human fate must change position, and take post on the side of the 
people." 

By the first of these bills, the selection of newspapers for the publica- 
tion of the laws, then made by the secretary of state, was to be made in 
each state by its senators and representatives in congress. The second 
bill required the president, in all nominations to fill vacancies, occasioned 
by the exercise of the president's power to remove from office, to state 
to the senate his reasons for the removal. And the offices of all collec- 
tors and disbursers of public moneys who should fail to account for the 
same, were to be vacated. Postmasters whose emoluments exceeded a 
certain sum, were to be appointed by the president and senate. Cadets 
and midshipmen were to be taken, one of each from each congressional 
district in the state, and the two corresponding to the number of senators, 
from the state at large. Officers in the army and navy were not there- 
after to hold their offices " during the pleasure of the president," but 
" during good behavior." 

Mr. Tazewell having moved the printing of an extra number of the 
report and bills, Mr. Randolph said he "hoped the largest number 
would be printed that had been printed of any document during the pre- 
sent session." He wished the number to be equal to that of a certain 
document which he called " a message to the house to announce an elec- 



350 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tioneering arrangement;" alluding, as is supposed, to the message on 
the proposed Panama mission. Mr. R. said : " Though he had little 
faith in the strength of the virus of the executive poison which was 
attempted to be instilled into the public mind, he wished the antidote to 
■proceed •with it, pari passu.''^ Accordingly 6,000 copies were ordered 
printed. 

The bills were at the same time ordered to a second reading ; but no 
• farther action appears to have been taken upon them at that session, 
except to lay them on the table, on the motion of Mr. Macon, who had 
collected the facts and matured the subject, but whose ill health pre- 
vented his entering into the discussion of it. 

From the unusual number of candidates for the presidency for more 
than a year before the election of 1824, it was apprehended that there 
would be no election by the presidential electors. To prevent an ulti- 
mate resort to the house of representatives, as well as to secure a uni- 
form mode of choosing electors in the several states, numerous attempts 
were made in congress to propose to the states certain amendments to 
the constitution. Also bills were introduced into the legislatures of 
several states in which electors were chosen by the legislature, proposing 
to place the election in the hands of the people. 

In the legislature of New York, a bill for this purpose passed the 
assembly, but was negatived in the senate. The defeat of the bill pro- 
duced general dissatisfaction, which was plainly expressed at the next 
election of members of the legislature. In accordance with the will of the 
people, indicated by the return of a majority to both houses in favor of 
the proposed change, an electoral law was passed at the next session. 
This law, however, did not prescribe the mode of choosing the electors, 
but provided for submitting to the people, at their next annual election, 
(in 1825,) the question, whether the electors should be chosen by general 
ticket, or singly in the several congressional districts. The district sys- 
tem was adopted ; but after the next presidential election, it was 
changed to the general ticket sj stem, for the purpose of securing to the 
state an undivided vote in the election of president. 

Propositions to amend the constitution wei'e renewed at the next ses- 
sion. Among the plans submitted, was that of Col. Benton, just alluded 
to, proposing, (1.) A uniform mode by districts. (2.) The president 
and vice-president to be elected by a direct vote of the people. (3.) In 
case no candidate had received a majority of the votes first given, a 
second election was to be held and conducted as the first ; the choice to 
be made from the two candidates having received the highest numbers 
of votes for the same office. This plan was very elaborately and ably 
argued in the report. 



PROPOSITKiMS FOR RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 351 

Choosing by electors, it was said, enabled the majority to impress the 
minority into their service, put it into the power of a few to control the 
election, and enabled the populous states to consolidate their votes, and to 
overwhelm the small ones. Electing by legislative ballot, took the elec- 
tion out of the hands of the people, left it with a preexisting body 
chosen for a different purpose, and enabled the dominant party in the 
legislature to bestow the vote of the state according to their own sense 
of duty or private interest. Whereas, the district system gave to every 
state, and to the several sections of the state, due weight in the elec- 
tion. Besides, it was a mode of election in which either electors might 
be used, or a direct vote might be given by the people. 

The advantages expected from the institution of electors, the report 
continued, had never been realized. It was the intention of the framers 
of the constitution to provide an independent body of men, chosen by 
the people from among themselves, on account of their superior discern- 
ment, virtue, and information, who should be left to make the election 
according to their own will. But the electors were not the independent 
body they were intended to be : they had no discretion. Candidates 
were selected by the people ; and the electors were mere agents, and in 
a case wliere no agency was necessary. If, on the other hand, they were 
really independent, such independence was incompatible with the safety 
of the people. As was well known, they were oftener selected for their 
devotion to a party and electioneering tact, than for excellence of charac- 
ter. Hence the propriety of giving to the qualified electors a direct 
vote in the election of president and vice-president. 

A direct election, it was also said, accorded better with the theory 
of our government. The principle that the fnass, upon whom the laws 
operated, should elect those who make the laws, was equally applicable 
to those who execute the laws, and especially in the case of the president, 
who, in executing them, has at his command, not only the army and the 
navy, but the judiciary, and numerous other officers of his own appoint- 
ment. The apprehension, on the part of the framers, that a popular 
election of president would be too tumultuous, and likely to be attended 
with violence, was without foundation. The state elections, at which the 
highest state officers and representatives in congress, had for nearly forty 
years been chosen directly by the popular vote, afforded no cause of 
alarm. Our liberties had far more to fear from indifference and a neglect 
of the elective franchise, than from excesses of violence. The last elec- 
tion was eminently adapted to excite the feelings of the people ; yet not 
one-half of the voters of the United States had been got to the polls. 

The committee laid down these axioms: To prevent corruption^ 
(I.) Multiply the voters. (2.) Keep the candidates from among them. 



352 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

(3.) Avoid preexisting bodies of electors. To prevent violence and 
avoid coalitions, separate the electors. The plan of the committee, the 
report said, had been brought to the test of each of these axioms, and 
found to abide them. The voters would consist of millions, and could 
not be corrupted ; they would be scattered over the territory of the whole 
confederation, and could not hold intercourse with the candidates ; they 
would vote at several thousand different places on the same hours of the 
day, and could neither fight nor coalesce ; they were not a preexisting 
body, in the sense of the objection, for that term applied only to small 
selected bodies. 

Notwithstanding numerous and various amendments were moved in 
congress for several successive sessions, no proposition of amendment to 
be submitted to the states, at any time received the sanction of both 
houses. 



CHAPTER XXVI. 



THE PANAMA MISSION. 



One of the principal topics of discussion at the session of 1 825-26, 
was the " Panama Mission," so called from the proposition to send com- 
missioners to a congress of the southern republics which was to assemble 
at Panama. This subject was thus alluded to in the annual message of 
the president : 

" Among the measures which have been suggested to them by the new 
relations with one another, resulting from the recent changes of their 
condition, is that of assembling at the isthmus of Panama, a congress, 
at which each of them should be represented, to deliberate upon objects 
important to the welfare of all. The republics of Colombia, of Mexico, 
and of Central America, have already deputed plenipotentiaries to such 
a meeting, and they have invited the United States to be also represented 
there by their ministers. The invitation has been accepted ; and minis-* 
tcrs on the part of the United States will be commissioned to attend at 
those deliberations, and to take a part in them, so far as may be compat- 
ible with that neutrality, from which it is neither our intention, nor the 
desire of the other American states, that we should depart." 

The first suggestion of the proposed congress was ascribed to Bolivar 
a conspicuous leader in the South American revolution, and for severa. 
years president of Colombia, one of the southern republics ; and who, Id 



THE PANAMA MISSION. 353 

1823, invited Mexico, Peru, Chili, and Buenos Ayros to send delegates to 
Panama, with the design of forming a confederacy, for the purpose, as 
•was by some alleged, of providing for a successful resistance to Spain, 
and for giving security to their independence. Appreciating the interest 
felt by the people of the United States for their southern neighbors in 
their revolutionary struggle, and the early recognition of their independ- 
ence by our government, they extended the invitation to the United 
States. Verbal conferences on the subject had been held with the secre- 
tary of state, by the ministers of Mexico, Colombia, and Central 
America, at Washington ; and in November, the invitation was formally 
given in letters to Mr. Clay ; and several subjects were named as being 
deemed proper for the consideration of the congress. 

In his answer to the ministers of Mexico and Colombia, Mr. Clay 
says : " In your note, there is not so exact a compliance with the condi- 
tions on which the president expressed his willingness that the United 
States should be represented at Panama, as could have been desired. It 
would have been, perhaps, better, if there had been a full understanding 
between all the American powers who may assemble by their representa- 
tives, of the precise questions on which they are to deliberate ; and that 
some other matters respecting the powers of the deputies, and the organ- 
ization of the congress, should have been distinctly arranged prior to the 
opening of its deliberations. But as the want of the adjustment of these 
preliminaries, if it should occasion any inconvenience, could be only pro- 
ductive of some delay, the president has determined, at once, to manifest 
the sensibility of the United States, to whatever concerns the prosperity 
of the American hemisphere, and to the friendly motives which have ac- 
tuated your government in transmitting the invitation which you have 
communicated. He has, therefore, resolved, should the senate of the 
United States, now expected to assemble in a few days, give their advice 
and consent, to send commissioners to the congress. Whilst they will 
not be authorized to enter upon any deliberations, or to concur in any 
acts inconsistent with the present neutral position of the United States 
and its obligations, they will be fully empowered and instructed upon all 
questions likely to arise in the congress, on subjects in which the nations 
of America have a common interest." 

On the 26th of December, the president sent to the senate a confi- 
dential message, stating some of the reasons for accepting the invitation, 
and nominating Richard C. Anderson, of Kentucky, and John Sergeant, 
of Pennsylvania, as commissioners, and William B. Rochester, of New 
York, as secretary of the mission. He again disclaimed the intention 
either *' to contract alliances, or to engage in any undertaking or project 
of hostility to any other nation." He believed such a meeting would 



354 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

/ 

afford a favorable occasion for establishing a more liberal as well as a 
more stable commercial intercourse than had been enjoj^ed, and principles 
which should govern their conduct as belligerents and neutrals in time 
of war. It might also be advisable to settle the question, whether the 
security of republican institutions did not require the parties to prevent 
any European power from establishing a colony within the borders of the 
parties — a principle announced by Mr. Adams' predecessor, and generally 
known as the " Monroe doctrine." 

The appointment of committees was, by a rule of the senate, devolved 
•apon the vice-president, as president of that body; and in constituting 
the committee on foreign relations, to whom the subject was referred, 
Mr. Calhoun had selected a majority of its members from the opponents 
of the administration. 

The committee, on the IGtli of January, reported adversely to the 
proposed mission. It was called a new and untried measure ; and they 
saw no cogent reasons for departing from the established policy of the 
government. The objects of the congress should have been more partic- 
ularly stated and defined, and the manner of their accomplishment more 
distinctly marked out. The committee took exception to several of the 
subjects of discussion mentioned by the different ministers, but to which 
the president had made no allusion. Nor did they consider the object 
of establishing the principles of a commercial intercourse as justifying 
a participation in the proposed congress. If the nations were wrong in 
supposing that their former commercial policy had been most conducive 
to their own interests, " the task of exhibiting their errors might be 
much better performed by particular discussions with each separately, 
than by general demonstrations made to all, assembled as a congress." 
They also questioned the authority of the government to enter into any 
negotiation with foreign nations for the purpose of settling or promul- 
gating, either principles of internal policy, or mere abstract propositions, 
as parts of public law. 

After an examination of all the reasons for the proposed mission, and 
the objects contemplated by it, the committee concluded their report 
with the resolution, " That it is not expedient, at this time, for the 
United States to send any ministers to the congress of American nations 
assembled at Panama." 

A debate immediately ensued, in which the resolution was supported 
by Messrs. Ilayne, Woodbury, White, Van Buren, Berrien, Dickerson, 
Benton, and Randolph ; and opposed by Messrs. Bobbins, F. Johnson, 
Holmes, and others. Many of the speeches were of great length, and 
the debate, as a whole, has seldom been surpassed in point of ability, in 
that body. It was con' Inued until the 14th of March, when the resolu' 



THE PANAMA MISSION. 355 

tion was negatived, by a vote of 19 to 24. The nominations were then 
confirmed by about the same vote ; and the injunctions of secrecy were 
removed from the journal. 

The concurrence of the house of representatives being necessary in an 
act appropriating the money for carrying the mission into effect, the sub- 
ject was referred in that body to the committee of foreign relations, who, 
on the 25th of March, 1825, made a report in favor of the mission. In 
the opinion of the committee, the congress of Panama had been impro- 
perly compared with that of the allied sovereigns of Europe. It was 
neither a meeting of sovereigns, nor a government or branch of a govern- 
ment. It had, therefore, no legislative power ; nor could its members, 
by their acts, bind each other, or the governments which they represented. 
They were mere diplomatic agents, having power only to discuss and nego- 
tiate, whose conclusions were subject to the ratification of some organic 
body at home. Besides, it was expressly stipulated in the treaties be- 
tween these new republics, that the meeting at Panama should " not 
affect the national sovereignty of the contracting parties, in regard to 
their laws, and the establishment and form of their respective govern- 
ments." 

With respect to the constitutional objection, they perceived in the con- 
stitution no restriction on the appointment of foreign ministers by the 
proper authority. The objection erroneously assumed, that the congress 
was a government, or part of a government, or a confederacy of govern- 
ments. The United States therefore would not enter into a confedera- 
tion, or form a union with foreign powers, by sending ministers to treat 
with them. 

The objection that the subjects of discussion, the powers of the minis- 
ters, and the rules of the congress, were not sufficiently settled, was 
deemed of little weight. The principal topics to be discussed had been 
stated ; and as the power of the ministers was expressly restricted to 
that of negotiation ; and as they were to be bound by no decision of the 
congress without their own consent, a minute detail on the points above 
mentioned was ftf no great importance. 

. Nor did the committee tliink our attendance would endanger our 
neutrality. Having acknowledged the independence of the new repub- 
lics, we had already established our right to treat them as free and 
independent states. They were at war with Spain. The allies of Spain 
were taking no part in the war. Great Britain, the most powerful of 
those allies, had acknowledged the independence of several of these states, 
and established diplomatic relations with them. These acts of the United 
States and Great Britain, not only weakened Spain as a belligerent, but 
directly violated her colonial laws ; yet she submitted to them. If, then, 



356 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

our recognition of the independence of her revolting colonies, and our 
trading with them in contravention of her colonial laws, was no breach 
of neutrality, there could be none in our attendance at the proposed 
congress. 

To the objection that we might become involved in an entangling 
alliance with the new states, it was answered, that the project of such 
alliance was expressly disclaimed by the president ; that the congress was 
not a government with which we could form an alliance ; that any agree- 
ment entered into must be submitted to the constitutional ratifying pow- 
ers at home ; and that an entangling alliance was lio more likely to 
result from this mission than from any mission to any power. Indeed, 
an alliance might be more easily formed with a foreign sovereign, parti- 
cularly an absolute one, who was himself competent to form an alliance, 
than could be done by our ministers to Panama, who would be accredited 
to other ministers no more competent than our own to pledge their gov- 
ernments. The committee farther observed, that the new republics 
being at war with the same enemy, and being in alliance with each other, 
an alliance with one of them would be as entangling as an alliance with 
them all. Hence, the reason that would forbid our attending the con- 
gress, would recpire us to withdraw our diplomatic connection with these 
states. 

The mission had been objected to as novel and unprecedented. Because 
■the establishment of several new republics at once was an unprecedented 
event, it did not follow that their subsequent acts or ours should be called 
novel and unprecedented. It was natural that these states should hold 
diplomatic conferences with each other, and with neighboring nations which 
had important relations with them. Similar meetings of friendly states 
had frequently been held. In principle, our meeting at the congress 
would not be without precedent. The negotiations in 1782, which 
resulted in the treaties of peace between the United States, France, and 
Great Britain, were of the nature of the conferences of diplomatic agents. 
On the principle that every act must have an exact precedent, the most 
important measures of our government could never have been adopted. 

The proposed congress had been likened to that of the allied sovereigns 
of Europe (the " Holy Alliance"). But the pernicious character of the 
European congress consisted not in their assembling and treating 
together, but in the character of the governments and the objects to be 
effected. The objections to a congress of despotic powers, wielding the 
force of large standing armies, and concerting measures for violent inter- 
ference in the internal affairs of other states, and especially to prevent 
the establishment of free institutions, did not hold against a congress of 
republics governed by written laws and elective magistrates. 



THE PANAMA MISSION. 357 

Having considered the principal objections to the measure, and en- 
deavored to show that it was consistent with our international policy, the 
committee considered the subjects of discussion, which, they said, by the 
terms of the invitation, as well as from the nature of the case, wefe to 
extend to all subjects of importance: (1.) To the new states, as among 
each other. (2.) Or, as between them and Spain. (3.) Or of import- 
ance directly to us, in our connection with them. Each power might 
propose for discussion or negotiation any subject it pleased ; except that 
the United States, as was understood, were to engage in no discussion 
inconsistent with neutrality. 

The importance, to us, of the relations of the new states to each other, 
arose from their proximity to the United States. One of them, (Mexico,) 
had an immense landed frontier on our territory, and, with two others, 
laid on those waters into which the great internal communications of the 
United States were discharged. With all of them we had important 
connections. Of the eight or nine independent states, formed out of the 
late Spanish and Portuguese colonies, seven, viz. : Mexico, Guatemala, 
Colombia, the Provinces of La Plata, Chili, Peru, and Upper Peru, had 
adopted republican governments. It was to us a matter of interest how 
these should stand toward each other. Should they fall into dissensions 
and wars, the great advantages we had anticipated from their growth 
and prosperity would not be realized. It would have been as well for 
us and for themselves, that the mother country had continued to rule 
them, as that their energies should be wasted in civil wars. Controver- 
sies arising from rival claims to portions of territory, already existed, 
and in one instance had resulted in war. It had already become neces- 
sary to ask an additional appropriation for the naval service, of nearly 
one hundred thousand dollars, to protect the lives and property of our 
citizens from the dangers to which, in the progress of this war, they 
would be exposed. Now, it was expressly provided in the treaties which 
led to the formation of the congress at Panama, that the ministers there 
assembled should exercise the office of mediators when such differences 
should arise. To the work of mediation, the United States would come 
as the most disinterested party. And if in but a single instance we 
could avert or terminate a war, it would itself form a sufficient motive 
for accepting the invitation. 

Upon the subject of the relations of the new states with Spain, our 
ministers were not only to observe a strict neutrality, but to endeavor 
to effect a pacification ; an object to us of vast importance. The revival 
of our languishing commerce with Spain, and its profitable expansion 
with the new states, could be expected only from the termination of the 
present contest. 



358 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

But the most importaut subjects of discussiou were the direct inter 
ests between the United States and the new republics. "With some of 
them we had no treaties whatever; and with Mexico, none that was 
satisfactory. A conference of the ministers of all these new states 
would afford the best opportunity of establishing liberal and uniform 
relations with all. The United States, the committee said, had long 
labored to introduce into public law more liberal and equal principles. 
Our policy respecting the laws of war and trade differed in many points 
from that of Europe : and these new republics now ask the benefit of 
our experience in the great school of international politics. To refuse 
our attendance when urged upon this ground, would be to neglect the 
fairest opportunity ever afforded of diffusing liberal doctrines of public 
law. 

In accordance with the views of the committee, they recommended the 
adoption of the following resolution : Resolved, That, in the opinion 
of the house, it is expedient to appropriate the funds necessary to 
enable the president of the United States to send ministers to the con- 
gress of Panama. 

A bill providing for the necessary appropriations was on the same 
day, (March 25,) reported by the committee of ways and means. 

The resolution was taken up -in committee of the whole, on the 4th 
of April. The debate commenced on an amendment offered by Mr. 
M'Lane, of Delaware, proposing to instruct the ministers to attend the 
congress in a diplomatic character merely, and forbidding them to dis- 
cuss or consider any proposition of alliance or compact which should 
bind us to resist interference from abroad with the domestic concerns of 
the South American governments, or should commit the neutral rights 
of the United States in regard to any other nations or states. 

Among those who advocated the amendment, were Messrs. M'Lane, 
Wickliflfe, Rives, Hamilton, Buchanan, Ilcmphill, Ingham, Forsyth, 
Archer, and Cambreleng; all of whom were opposed to the administra- 
tiofi. The amendment was opposed by Messrs. Webster, Everett, 
Livingston, Buckner, Fr. Johnson, Wurtz, Thompson, and others. All 
the gentlemen last named were, it is believed, friends of the administra- 
tion, except Mr. Livingston, of Louisiana. Several other amendments 
and substitutes were offered in the course of the debate, but they were 
all rejected, Mr. M'Lane's amendment was slightly modified before the 
fijial vote was taken upon it. 

The amendment of Mr. M'Lane was opposed as being an infringement 
on the constitutional duties of the executive. The constitution vesta 
the executive power in the president ; and the giving of instructions to 
ministers was an exercise of executive power. The amendment virtu- 



THE PANAMA MISSION. 359 

ally prescribed such instructions ; and its adoption would be an unau- 
thorized assumption of power. 

The general principle was also asserted, that the house was bound to 
carry treaties into effect, irrespective of their expediency ; that the 
question of expediency was one which the house was not called upon to 
decide. Such was the opinion of Washington, who, when called on by 
the house for a copy of the instructions to Mr. Jay, who had negotiated 
the treaty with Great Britain, stated, as a reason for refusing to comply 
with the request, that treaties, " when ratified by the president, with 
the advice and consent of the senate, become obligatory;" and " that 
the assent of the house of representatives is not necessary to the validity 
of a treaty." Congress was morally bound to pay the salaries of the 
officers of the government. The appointment of ministers, by whom 
treaties were made, was also given to the president and senate; and hence 
was inferred the duty of the house, in the present case, to vote the sal- 
aries of the ministers who had been constitutionally appointed. 

The proposed restriction upon the ministers in relation to any " pro- 
position of alliance or compact, binding the United States to resist 
interference from abroad with thfe South American governments," was 
the subject of much discussion. It seems to have been intended to 
counteract the designs (if any existed) on the part of the executive, to 
carry into effect the declaration of Mr. Monroe against European colo- 
nization in America, and against any attempts of tho Allied Powers to 
extend their system to any portion of this continent. One object which 
Mr. Monroe had in view, was to prevent the occupation of the island 
of Cuba by any other European power ; an event then not altogether 
improbable, but which might endanger the safety of the United States. 
The restriction, it was urged, would place it out of our power to coun- 
teract such design. The president was known to coincide in this prin- 
ciple of Mr. Monroe ; and Mr. Clay, in his general instructions to Mr. 
Poinsett, our minister to Mexico, had requested him to bring to the 
notice of the Mexican government the message of Mr. Monroe to con- 
gress, in 1823, in which the declaration was made. 

The advocates of the restriction would not look with indifference on 
an attempt by any power to interfere with the independence of these 
republics, or to control their right of self-government ; but they desired 
to be left free to adopt such measures as might be thought proper when 
the crisis should arrive. They denied that tho amendment contained 
instructions, either to the president or to the ministers; and therefore 
it did not interfere with the constitutional rights of the executive. The 
right and the propriety of the house to express its opinion respecting the 
expediency of uniting in the contemplated congress, were asserted ; as 



360 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

also the right to withhold appropriations for the mission. It was held 
that the constitutional power to do any act, implied a discretionary 
power to determine its expediency. What rendered the exercise of this 
power peculiarly proper in the present instance, was, that the question 
was submitted to the judgment of the house in express terms by the 
resolution of the committee. 

The debate on the resolution of Mr. M'Lane continued in committee 
of the whole, until the 20th of April, when the committee reported to 
the house the resolution of the committee on foreign relations, without 
amendment. Mr. M'Lane then moved, in the house, the amendment he 
had oifered in committee, which, after several ineflfectual motions to 
amend it, was adopted, 99 to 95. On the next day, the question was 
taken on the resolution of the committee on foreign relations as amended 
on motion of Mr. M'Lane, and decided in the negative : ayes, 54 ; noes, 
143. 

The bill providing for the expense of the mission was then taken up 
in committee of the whole, slightly amended, and reported to the house. 
Mr. M'Duffie moved to strike out the enacting clause, and supported his 
motion by a long, animated, and violent speech. The motion was lost, 
61 to 134. On the following day, (April 22,) the bill was passed, 134 
to 60. 

It is impossible from these several votes to determine precisely the 
sense of the house upon the different points embraced in the general 
question. Some of the friends of the administration and of the mission 
without restriction, had voted for Mr. M'Lane's amendment, regarding 
it as not hostile to the intentions of the president as expressed in his 
message. The next day, however, some of them, considering the amend- 
ment an encroachment on the constitutional rights of the executive, 
united with those who were opposed to the mission as wholly inexpe- 
dient, in rejecting the amended resolution. Some probably voted for 
the bill appropriating the funds, who, though not friendly to the mission, 
considered it the duty of the house to make the appropriation without 
expressing its opinion on the expediency of the mission. Hence it is 
not certain, either that a majority of the house was in favor of the 
mission unrestricted, or of asserting a right to give instructions in rela- 
tion to our foreign policy. The bill was concurred in by the senate, 
with but three dissenting votes. 

The congress, composed of representatives from Colombia, Peru, Cen- 
tral America, and Mexico, assembled at Panama on the 22d of June, 
1826. The United States were not represented. Mr. Anderson, our 
minister to Colombia, who had been ordered to attend the congress, died 
on the way; and the delay caused by the protracted discussion on the 



CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 36i 

subject of the mission, in both houses of congress, prevented the attend 
ance of Mr. Sergeant. Sufl&cieut time did not remain after the decision 
of the house to make the necessary preparation for his departure, and 
to cross the isthmus in time to avoid exposure to the sickness which pre- 
vailed there at a certain season of the year. 

The congress closed its session the 15th of July; having concluded 
a treaty of league and perpetual friendship, in which the states not re- 
presented might join within the year. The congress adjourned to meet 
again in February, 1827, at Tacubaya, near the city of Mexico. 

Mr. Poinsett, our minister to Mexico, was appointed commissioner 
in the place of Mr. Anderson, deceased ; and Mr. Sergeant, with Mr. 
Rochester, secretary of the mission, departed for Tacubaya in Novem- 
ber. The congress, however, did not assemble ; owing, it was said, to 
the internal commotions in Colombia, Peru, and Central America, which 
had prevented the ratification, by their governments, of the treaties con- 
cluded at Panama. Until this should be done, it was believed the con- 
gress would not be resumed : and Messrs. Sergeant and Rochester re- 
turned the following summer. 

Thus terminated the Panama missiou, which, though well intended, 
and perhaps wise and proper if the congress had been fully attended, 
was, by the opponents of Mr. Adams, turned to the disadvantage of his 
administration. 



CHAPTEE XXYII. 

CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA, IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE 

INDIANS. 

The removal and settlement of the Indian tribes beyond the Missis- 
sippi, had been repeatedly made the subject of executive recommenda- 
tion. Mr. Monroe, in a special message, March 30, 1824, called the 
attention of congress to the subject ; and again on the 27th of January, 
1825, a few weeks before the close of his administration. In the latter 
message, the president said : " The great object to be accomplished is, 
the removal of these tribes to the territory designated, on conditions 
which shall be satisfactory to themselves and honorable to the United 
States. This can be done only by conveying to each tribe a good title 
to an adequate portion of land to which it may consent to remove, and 
by providing for it there a system of internal government, which shall 



362 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

protect their property from invasion, and, by the regular progress of 
improvement and civilization, prevent that degeneracy which has gene- 
rally marked the transition from the one to the other state." 

The four principal southern tribes were the Creeks located in Georgia 
and Alabama, and numbering about 20,000 ; the Cherokees, in Georgia, 
Alabama, and Tennessee, 9,000; the Choctaws, in Mississippi and 
Alabama, 21,000; and the Chickasaws, in Mississippi, 3,625. For the 
removal of the tribes within the limits of Georgia, the president consider- 
ed the motive peculiarly strong, arising from an existing compact with 
that state. 

Georgia was the only state having large claims to unoccupied western 
lands, which did not make an early cession of them to the United States. 
At length, by a compact between the two governments, Georgia ceded 
to the United States her right and title to all the lands south of the 
state of Tennessee, and west of the Chatahoochie river, and a line drawn 
from the Uchee direct to the Nicojack on the Tennessee river. In con- 
sideration of this cession, the United States stipulated to pay the state 
of Georgia $1,250,000, and " to extinguish at their own expense, for the 
state of Georgia, the Indian title to the lands lying within the limits of 
that state, as early as it could be peaceably obtained, and on reasonable 
terms." 

The quantity of land owned by the Creeks at that time within the 
state of Georgia, was estimated at IC, 578, 890 acres. By several suc- 
cessive treaties, the last of which was held in 1821, the United States 
had procured the cession of 14,743,590 acres. At the date of the com- 
pact, the Cherokees were in possession of 7,152,110 acres, of which 
995,310 acres had been acquired by the general government for Georgia. 
According to the report of the secretary of war accompanying the mes- 
sage of January 27, 1825, the Creeks still claimed in Georgia, 4,245,760 
acres ; and the Cherokees 5,202,160 acres. And the two tribes claimed 
in Alabama, 5,995,200 acres. The Cherokees claimed in Tennessee, 
1,055,680 acres. The Choctaws and Chickasaws, claimed in Mississippi, 
15,705,000 acres, and 1,276,976 in Alabama. 

In farther fulfillment of the stipulation of the United States to ex- 
tinguish the Indian title to lands in Georgia, a treaty was made Feb- 
ruary 12, 1825, with chiefs of the Creek nation, by which they ceded to 
the United States their lands in Georgia, and agreed to receive in ex- 
change for them a like quantity west of the Mississippi on the Arkansas 
river, and the sum of $400,000 as a compensation for the improvements 
made on their lands, for tlieir losses and the inconveniences attending 
their removal, and for obtaining supplies in their new settlement. They 
were to remove from their lands in Georgia by the 1st of Sept., 1826. 



CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INPIANS. 363 

The execution of this treaty by Gen. M'Intosh, one of the principal 
chiefs, and a few others, -without the consent of the representatives of 
the Creek nation, gave great dissatisfaction. Under the policy adopted 
at an early period, the southern Indians had become in a good measure 
civilized, and were exchanging their habits of hunting for the pursuits 
of agriculture. They were therefore averse to any farther sales, and 
had enacted the punishment of death against any chief who should sanc- 
tion such a measure. In accordance with this law, M'Intosh and one 
or two other chiefs were summarily executed for this unauthorized and 
fraudulent transaction. 

It was this treaty that led to the unhappy controversy between the 
state of Georgia and the general government. The Indians were deter- 
mined not to leave their lands ; and the government of Georgia insisted 
on the fulfillment of the treaty. A special meeting of the legislature 
was called by Gov. Troup, for the purpose, chiefly, of providing for the 
survey and appropriation of the territory acquired from the Creeks. 
The governor, however, took occasion to notice another subject, which, 
from its supposed superior importance, or for other reasons, took pre- 
cedence in the deliberations of the legislature. The language and con- 
duct of the governor and the legislature, and especially that of the com- 
mittee to whom the subject was referred, were generally regarded a? 
both ludicrous and reprehensible. 

Mr. King, a senator from New York, had at the preceding session of 
congress, offered a resolution proposing to appropriate, after the pay- 
ment of the public debt, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, to 
aid in the emancipation of slaves, and the colonizing of free persons of 
color, without the limits of the United States. This resolution had 
never been called up by the mover, being intended, as was supposed, 
merely for record as his opinion on the subject to which it related. 
Similar propositions had been pressed upon the consideration of congress 
by the legislatures of several slaveholding states. Also Mr. Wirt, of 
Virginia, attorney-general of the United States, had given an official 
opinion, that a law of South Carolina, authorizing the imprisonment of 
colored mariners arriving there, was unconstitutional. 

These acts of Mr. King and Mr. Wirt, were pronounced by the gov- 
ernor in his message, " officious and impertinent intermeddlings with 
our domestic concerns." The doctrine of the attorney-general, if sanc- 
tioned by the supreme court, " would make it quite easy for congress, 
by a short decree, to divest this entire interest, without cost to them- 
selves of one dollar, or of one acre of public land. If the government 
of the United States," said the governor, " wishes a principle established 
which it dare not establish for itself, a cause is made before the supreme 



364 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

court ; and the principle once settled, the act of congress follows of 
course. One movement of congress unresisted by you, and all is lest. 
Temporize no longer — make known your resolution, that this subject 
shall not be touched by them but at their peril. * * * if this 
matter, (slavery,) be an evil, it is our own ; if it be a sin, we can implore 
the forgiveness of it. To remove it, we ask not either their sympathy or 
assistance. It may be our physical weakness — it is our moral strength. 
If, like the Greeks and Romans, we cease to be masters, we are slaves. 
I entreat you most earnestly, now that it is not too late, to step forth, 
and, having exhausted the argument, to stand by your arms." 

This subject was referred to a select committee, who presented to the 
house a report responding to the feelings and sentiments of the governor. 
" The hour is come," say the committee, "or is rapidly approaching 
when the states, from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisiana, 
must confederate, and; as one man, say to the union : " We will no 
longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad 
men on the floor of congress — our constitutional rights to the dark and 
strained construction of designing men upon judicial benches; that we 
detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission 
to the general government. * * * 

'* Let our northern brethren, then, if there is no peace in union, if 
the compact has become too heavy to be longer borne, in the name of all 
the mercies, find peace among themselves. Let them continue to rejoice 
in their self righteousness ; let them bask in their own elysium, while 
they depict all south of the Potomac as a hideous reverse. As Athens, 
as Sparta, as Rome was, we will be : they held slaves; we hold them. 
Let the north then form national roads for themselves; let them guard 
with tariffs their own interest ; let them deepen their public debt until 
a high-minded aristocracy shall arise out of it. We want none of all 
those blessings. But in the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we 
would still remain master and servant under our own vine and our own 
fig tree, and confide for safety upon Him, who of old time, looked down 
upon this state of things without wrath." 

The committee concluded their report with two resolutions; declaring 
their concurrence in the sentiments of the governor, and for the support 
of their determination to " stand by their arms," pledging their lives, 
their fortunes, and their sacred honor; and requesting the governor to 
forward copies of the resolutions to the governors of the several states, 
and to their own senators and representatives in congress. 

On the next day, (June 7,) another message was communicated, in 
which the governor again adverted to the resolutions of the state legis- 
latures on tlie subject of slavery, and the acts of the individuals before 



CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 365 

inentioTied ; complained of the eiforts that had been made to render 
unavailing the guaranties of the constitution ; and concluded thus : 

" The attorney-general, representing the United States, says before 
the supreme court, in a ripe and splendid argument, that slavery, being 
inconsistent with the laws of God and nature, can not exist. Do we 
want more ? or shall we wait until the principle being decided against 
as, the execution issues, and the entire property is bought in from the 
proceeds of our public lands ? This is left to your decision. The 
United States can choose between our enmity and our love; and when 
you offer them the choice, you' perform the last and holiest of duties. 
They have adopted a conceit; and if they love that more than they love 
us, they will cling to it and throw us off ; but it will be written in your 
history, that you did not separate from the household without adopting 
the fraternal language : choose ye this day between our friendship and 
that worthless idol you have set up and worshiped." 

The object of Gov. Troup in his endeavors to excite apprehensions at 
the south of a meditated attempt on the part of the general government, 
to divest them of their slave property, and to produce insurrections, the 
reader is left to conjecture. 

But to return to the subject of the Indian difficulties. The attempt, 
by Georgia, to survey the Indian territory, was resisted by the Creeks ; 
and the president ordered the projected survey to be abandoned, until 
the time prescribed by the treaty for their removal. And Gen. Gaines, 
who had been ordered to the scene of the disturbances, and required to quell 
them by force, if necessary, or, in the event of hostilities having sub- 
sided, to make peace upon just principles, and prevent farther acts of 
retaliation or violence, informed Gov. Troup in a letter, (June 14,) that 
he was authorized to state to the Indians, that the president had 
required a postponement of the survey. The governor promptly replied, 
that the laws of Georgia were already extended over the ceded country, 
and, of course, that it was his duty to execute them; and that the 
statutory provisions on the subject would be found in the late act " to 
dispose of and distribute the lands lately acquired from the Creek 
nation." 

Gen. Gaines had been requested (June 13) to inform the government, 
without delay, of Gov. Troup's desire that the line between Georgia and 
Alabama should be run as early as possible. The latter declared his 
intention immediately to apprise the governor of Alabama to run the 
line between the two states, and ask his consent and cooperation ; and 
said: " If that consent and cooperation be refused, we will proceed to 
run the line without them ; as we will also proceed, in due time, to 
make the survey of the lands within our limits, disregarding any ob^ta- 



366 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



cles which may be opposed from any quarter." He said the government 
had issued its order upon false information of its agent, (Col. Crowell,) 
and thus reiterated his determination : " It is for you, therefore, to bring 
it to the issue ; it is for me only to repeat, that, cost what it will, the line will 
be run, and the survey executed. The government of Georgia will not 
retire from the position it occupies to gratify the agent of the hostile 
Indians ; nor will it do so, I trust, because it knows that, in conse- 
quence of disobedience to an unlawful mandate, it may be very soon 
recorded, that 'Georgia was.' " 

A few days after. Gov. Troup received a letter from the war depart- 
ment, dated June 15, 1825, saying, if the government of Georgia should 
undertake the project of surveying the lands ceded to the United States 
by the Creeks in the treaty of the Indian Springs, before the expiration 
of the time specified for the removal of the Indians, it would be wholly 
upon its own responsibility ; and that the government of the United 
States would not, in any manner, be responsible for any consequences 
which might result from that measure. 

In his reply of June 25, the governor said : " If it is intended that 
the government of the United States will interpose its power to prevent 
the survey, or if only it means, that omitting its constitutional duty it 
will not pacify the Indians, and make safe the frontier, while the officers 
of Georgia are in peaceful fulfillment of their instructions, * * * Jq 
either event, the president may rest content that the government of Geor- 
gia cares for no responsibilities in the exercise of its right, and the exe- 
cution of its trust, but those which belong to conscience and to God, who, 
thanks to him, is equally our God as the God of the United States." 
For the right of making the survey before the time at which the Indians 
were to give up the possession, the governor relied on the consent ob- 
tained from the party that executed the treaty. 

Gen. Gaines, on the 10th of July, 1825, informed Gov. Troup that 
the chiefs of both parties had assured him that they would remain at 
peace with each, other, and in no case injure the citizens of the United 
States ; there would, therefore, be no occasion for calling into service 
any of the military force of that state. And in this letter the general 
inclosed the certificate of William Edwards and Joseph Marshall, (the 
latter an interpreter of the council of chiefs of the M'Intosh party,) 
stating, that, in answer to the request for permission to survey the 
land, MTntosh had said he could not grant it, but would call the chiefs 
together, and lay it before them, which was never done. The governor, 
in proof of his having obtained such consent, referred to a letter of 
Gen. M'Intosh, saying : " If the general government and the agent of 
the Creek nation, with the party he influences make no objection or op- 



CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 367 

position to running or surveying the land, myself and the chiefs and the 
Indians who were in favor of the treaty, do not object — we give our 
consent." 

But admitting the treaty to have been lawfully executed, and the 
alleged consent to have been fully given, it was held that such consent 
could not confer the right claimed by Georgia. The sovereignty of the 
soil was ceded to the United States : therefore Georgia could not law- 
fully bargain with the chiefs for the right of survey, without the assent 
of the United States. Nor could the general government itself grant 
the right in question, before the expiration of the period within which 
the removal was to take place ; until which time, the United States were 
bound to protect the Indians " against the encroachments, hostilities, 
and impositions of the whites and all others." 

Gen. Gaines, who had met the chiefs of the M'Intosh party, and after- 
ward, at Broken Arrow, the hostile party, with a view to the adjustment 
of differences, as before mentioned, had found, as he said, the reputed 
hostile party to consist of all the .principal chiefs, and forty-nine fiftieths 
of the whole of the chiefs, head men and warriors of the nation, and 
considered them as in fact the Creek nation, and altogether free of the 
spirit of hostility ascribed to them. They objected to the treaty, alleg- 
ing that it was fraudulent, entered into contrary to the law and will of 
the nation, and by persons not authorized to treat, and refused to acqui- 
esce in it. 

These facts and allegations having been communicated to the govern- 
ment, Mr. Barbour, secretary of war, under date of July 21, informed 
Gov. Troup that they were considered as presenting a question beyond the 
cognizance of the executive, and would be referred to congress ; and that 
the faith of the United States being pledged to protect the Indians from 
encroachment till the time of their removal, the president had directed 
him " to state distinctly to his excellency, that, for the present, he will 
not permit the survey to be made." Mr. Barbour also informed Geu. 
Gaines of the president's determination, and intimated the possibility 
of " a collision, by overt acts, between the executive of the union and 
that of a state," however " repugnant to the feelings of the president;" 
adding: "If Gov. Troup shall persevere in his declared purpose of 
surveying the land against the repeated remonstrances of the department, 
it will present one of the most unfortunate events which have yet occur- 
red in our history." 

It may be proper here to state, that Col. Crowell, against whom, as 
Indian agent of the government, certain charges had been preferred by 
Gov. Troup, and whose agency had been suspended until an examination 
could be had, was acquitted, and restored to the duties of his agency. 



368 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. r 

In the course of the correspondence between Gen. Gaines and Gov. 
Troup, some altercation took place. The ill-natured letters of the gov- 
ernor drew from the general a reply marked more strongly with sarcasm 
and invective, than with the qualities which usually distinguish diplo- 
matic communications. This letter, dated duly 28, and addressed to the 
governor through the Georgia Journal, was followed by a note to the 
general, (August 6,) directing him to forbear farther intercourse with 
the government of Georgia, and informing him that his conduct would 
be represented to the president. 

A long letter, (August 7,) was accordingly addressed to the president, 
animadverting upon the conduct and correspondence of Gen. Gaines, 
and preferring an extraordinary accusation, in the most exceptionablt 
language, against the president himself. After having charged Gen. 
Gaines with " indiscretion, intemperance, deliberate disrespect, and the 
outrage of all decency," he adds : " The general is correct in one of his 
positions ; and, being in the right himself, he puts you in the wrong, and 
so conspicuously, that you stand on the insulated eminence, an almost 
"solitary advocate for vialcing and hrealdng treaties?'' 

Gen. Gaines was accused, among other things, of having used his influ- 
ence against Gov. Troup, who was a candidate for reelection. Associat- 
ing with the general for crimination other representatives of the govern- 
ment, he repeats the charge of " a most insulting interference with our 
local politics," and imputes to them " arrogance, self-sufficiency and a 
haughty and contemptuous carriage toward all the constituted authori- 
ties of the state;" adding as follows. "Now, sir, suffer me in conclu- 
sion to ask if these things have been done in virtue of your instructions, 
expressed or implied, or by authority of any warrant from you what- 
soever ; and if not so, whether you will sanction and adopt them as your 
own, and thus hold yourself responsible to the government of Georgia." 

On receiving the letter from the department of July 21, declaring so 
decidedly the intention of the president to prevent intrusions upon the 
Indian territory, and to refer the treaty to* congress, the governor con- 
cluded to defer the execution of his purpose. In his answer, (August 
15,) he says : " Until the will of the legislature of Georgia is expressed, 
no measures will be taken to execute the survey. The executive of 
Georgia has no authority, in the civil xvar with which the state is 
menaced, to strike the first blow, nor has it the inclination to provoke 
it." He still insisted, however, on the right to make the survey, pro- 
tested against the reference of the treaty to congress, and concluded by 
saying : " The legislature of Georgia will, on its first meeting, be advised 
to resist any effort which may be made to wrest from the state the terri- 
tory acquired by that treaty, and no matter by what authority that effort 



CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OP THE INDIANS. 369 

be made. * * * Qur right not asserted now, is lost forever. If 
the legislature shall fail to vindicate that right, the responsibility will 
be theirs, not mine." 

Gen. Gaines having continued his personal and caustic letters to the 
governor, the latter (August 31) demanded of the president the arrest 
and trial of the general according to the articles of war. The president 
(Sept. 19) informed Gen. Gaines of this demand, and of his decision not 
to accede to it ; but expressed his disapprobation of the writing and pub- 
lishing of the letters, and enjoined him, " in his future official inter- 
course with Gov. Troup, to abstain from every thing which may be 
deemed offensive;" adding, that he regarded the previous charges against 
him by Gov. Troup, and the publicity given to them, as affording a pal- 
liation of his conduct ; without which, he (the president) would have 
considered it his duty to yield to the demand. This decision was also 
communicated to Gov. Troup, with a copy of the letter to Gen. Gaines. 

The interest awakened by this controversy was not confined to this 
country. The belligerent attitude of Georgia toward the general gov- 
ernment, was a prominent topic of newspaper remark abroad, and gained 
for that state and its valorous executive a wide notoriety. Apprehen- 
sions of a civil war were seriously entertained on the other side of the 
Atlantic, and a rupture of the union was regarded as among the prob- 
able consequences. Our government was considered too weak to endure, 
answering well enough for a small community, but inadequate to the 
wants of a great and growing nation. A state, thwarted in its interests 
by the measures of the general government, naturally looked to separa- 
tion as the remedy. More correct opinions, however, generally pre- 
vailed even among foreigners. No serious alarm was extensively felt in 
this country; how much soever the injury inflicted by this affair upon 
our national character abroad was to be regretted. 

The executive, having endeavored in vain to obtain the acquiescence 
of the Creeks to the treaty, and anxious to effect an amicable settlement 
of the controversy, succeeded, after much effort, in making a new treaty, 
(January 24, 1826,) which was satisfactory to the Indians, and by which 
was obtained, with the exception of only a small quantity, all their land 
lying within the state of Georgia. The treaty was negotiated at "Wash- 
ington by James Barbour, secretary of war, on the part of the United 
States, and a delegation of Indians duly authorized by the Creek nation. 

On the 31st of January, it was submitted to the senate for ratifica- 
tion. At the suggestion of the Georgia senators, and with the view of 
securing to that state the whole of the Creek lands lying within the 
same, a new negotiation was entered into, and a supplementary article 

agreed on, extending tv^o of the lines limiting the former cession, by 

24 



370 THE AMERICAN STATESMAX 

which the desired object would probably be attained depending on the 
establishment of the line to be run between Georgia and Alabama. The 
additional article was communicated to the senate the 31st of March; 
and, on the 22d of April, the treaty thus amended, having been duly 
ratified, was proclaimed by the president. 

In the house, the bill " making appropriations to carry the treaty into 
ejBfect," met with violent opposition from the Georgia members, who re- 
corded their protest, asserting the validity of the former treaty, denying 
the right of the president and senate, without the consent of Georgia, to 
invalidate the right which that treaty secured to her ; and they objected 
to the new treaty that it did not, by an express provision, cede all the 
lands of the Creeks in that state, nor require their removal before Jan- 
uary, 1827. The bill was passed May 9, 1826, by 167 yeas to 10 nays. 

But the controversy was not yet settled. Unwilling to submit to the 
terms of the new treaty. Gov. Troup (July 24) ordered the surveys to 
be commenced the first of September, 1826. The commissioners ap- 
pointed to establish the boundaries between Georgia and Alabama having 
been unable to agree, the Georgia commissioners proceeded alone to run 
the line. 

In January, 1827, complaints reached the department, that the Georgia 
surveyors had passed the line established by the treaty, and were survey- 
ing lands not ceded. The fact was communicated by the president to 
congress, February 5, with the information that he had ordered prosecu- 
tions against the intruders for the penalties incurred ; and that if acts 
of encroachment were not discontinued, the military force would be em- 
ployed to aid in executing the laws. The subject was referred to a com- 
mittee in each house. The senate committee concluded their report re- 
commending a resoljition, requesting the president " to continue his exer- 
tions to obtain from the Creek Indians the relinquishment of any claim 
to lands within the limits of Georgia." 

The committee of the house, at the close of a long report recapitulating 
the facts relating to the controversy, recommend the adoption of two re- 
solutions : (1.) " That it is expedient to procure a cession of the Indian 
lands in the state of Georgia." (2.) " That, until such a cession is pro- 
cured, the law of the land, as set forth in the treaty of "Washington, 
ought to be maintained by all necessary, constitutional, and legal means." 
This report was made on the last day of the session ; and there was con- 
sequently no time for a full discussion of the resolutions. Mr. Drayton, 
of South Carolina, offered a scries of resolutions, declaring that Georgia 
possessed the right to the soil occupied by the Creeks ; the right herself 
to extinguish the title to the same, and to legislate for the Indians ; the 
right to survey the land ; and that the treaty of the Indian Springs was 



CONl'ltOVERSY WITH GEORGIA. REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 37 i 

valid. No other action on the subject was taken, except ordering b,000 
copies of the report and accompanying documents to be printed. 

Assurances that efforts would continue to be made by the president to 
obtain from the Indians a relinquishment of the small remainder of their 
unceded lands in Georgia, and that the opening of fresh negotiations had 
been prevented by the delay in fixing the dividing line between Georgia 
and Alabama, seem in a measure to have repressed, for a time, the hostile 
feelings of Gov. Troup toward the executive. But on his being officially 
apprised of the president's determination, expressed in his message to 
congress on the 5th of February, to employ force, if necessary, in ex- 
ecuting the laws, his hostility revived ; and, in a letter to the department, 
February 17, declares his purpose " to resist, to the utmost, any military 
attack from the government of the United States," and that measures 
for such resistance were in progress. " From the first decisive act of hos- 
tility," says the letter, " you will be considered and treated as a public 
enemy, and with the less repugnance, because you, to whom we might 
constitutionally have appealed for our own defense against invasion, are 
yourselves the invaders ; and what is more, the unblushing allies of the 
ravages, whose cause you have adopted." 

On the same day, the attorney and solicitors general of the state were 
)rdered to take the proper measures to effect the liberation of any sur- 
veyors that had been or might be arrested, by any civil process, under 
the authority of the general government, and to bring to justice the 
persons concerned in such arrestation. Major-generals were also re- 
quired to issue orders to hold in readiness their regiments and battalions 
to repel any hostile invasion of the territory of the state. 

Measures of resistance, however, appear to have been suddenly ar- 
rested. A few days after the governor's defiatory letter to the secretary 
of war, he addressed a letter to the Georgia delegation in congress, ex- 
pressing his pleasure on having just learned, that, since the communica- 
tion of the secretary of war of the 29th of January, informing him of 
the intended employment of force to expel the surveyors, the president 
had taken measures to procure the residue of the Indian lands. The 
letter bears indications of having been written with subdued feelings. It 
says : " You are at liberty to state to the councils before whom you 
represent the interests and rights of this state, that the governor of 
Georgia has never entertained the idea of resorting to military force to 
counteract measures of the government of the United States, but on 
the occasion where it was deemed better iq honor, in conscience, and in 
duty, to sacrifice every thing we hold dear, than unresistingly to submit." 

The governor was not pleased with the reference of the question to 
the supreme court. He said : " It will be for the government of Georgia 



372 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ultimately to submit, or not, to the decision of that tribunal." He did 
not cousider the supreme court the constitutional arbiter in controversies 
involving rights of sovereignty between a state and the United States. 
He complained of the wrong, cruelly inflicted, of having been charged 
with seeking a dissolution of the union, and concluded with the hope of 
success to the contemplated negotiation, and an amicable adjustment of 
diflicultics, wishing them to " make use of this disclosure and explana- 
tion" in endeavoring to promote the peace and harmony which ought 
always to subsist between the states and the United States, in which he 
assures them none can feel deeper concern than himself. The controversy 
was at length concluded, about the first of January, 1 828, by a treaty for 
the purchase of their remaining strip of land in Georgia. 

The policy recommended in the message of Monroe to which we have 
alluded, of effecting the removal of the Indian tribes beyond the Missis- 
sippi, seems not to have been lost sight of by the succeeding administra- 
tion. In compliance with a request from the committee on Indian aflairs, 
Mr. Barbour, the secretary of war, on the 3d of February, 1826, trans- 
mitted to the chairman of that committee, the project of " a bill for the 
preservation and civilization of the Indian tribes within the United 
States," with a report elucidating its purposes. The secretary in this 
admirable report, deplores their threatened extinction ;' recognizes their 
appeals to our compassion; and recommends the adoption of a just and 
humane policy as due alike to the Indians and to the character of our 
nation. The following paragraphs from this report will be read with 
interest : 

" It is the province of history to commit to its pages the transactions 
of nations. Posterity look to this depository with intense interest. The 
fair ftime of their ancestors, a most precious inheritage, is to them equally 
a source of pride, and a motive of continued good actions. But she per- 
forms her province with impartiality. The authority she exercises in 
the absence of others, is a check on bad rule. The tyrant and the 
oppressor see, in the character of their prototypes, the sentence posterity 
is preparing for them. Which side of the picture shall we elect ? for the 
decision is left to ourselves. Shall her record transmit the present race 
to future generations, as standing by, insensible to the progress of the 
desolation which threatens the remnant of this people ? or, shall these 
unfriendly characters give place to a generous effort which shall have 
been made to save them from destruction ? While deliberating on this 
solemn question, I would appeal to that high Providence, whose delight 
is justice and mercy, and take counsel from the oracles of his will, revealed 
to man, in his terrible denunciations against the oppressor. 

" In reviewing the past, justice requires that the humane attempts of 



CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 373 

the federal government, coeval with its origin, should receive an honor- 
able notice. That they have essentially failed, the sad experience of 
every day but too strongly testifies. If the original plan, conceived in a 
spirit of benevolence, had not been fated to encounter that as yet una- 
bated desire to bereave them of their lands, it would, perhaps, have real- 
ized much of the hopes of its friends. So long, however, as that desire 
continues to direct our councils, every attempt must fail. A cursory 
review is all that is necessary to show the incongruity of the measures 
we have pursued, and the cause of their failure. 

" Missionaries are sent among them to enlighten their minds, by 
imbuing them with religious impressions. Schools have been established 
by the aid of private as well as public donations, for the instruction of 
their youths. They have been persuaded to abandon the chase — to 
locate themselves, and become cultivators of the soil. Implements of 
husbandry and domestic animals have been presented them, and all 
these things have been done, accompanied with professions of a 
disinterested solicitude for their happiness. Yielding to these tempta- 
tions, some of them have reclaimed the forest, planted their orchards, 
and erected houses, not only for their abode, but for the administra- 
tion of justice, and for religious worship. And when they have so 
done, you send your agent to tell them they must surrender their 
country to the white man, and recommit themselves to some new desert, 
and substitute, as the means of their subsistence, the precarious chase 
for the certainty of cultivation. The love of our native land is implanted 
in every human bosom, whether he roams the wilderness or is found in 
the highest state of civilization. This attachment increases with the 
comforts cf our country, and is strongest when these comforts are the 
fruits of our own exertions. We have imparted this feeling to many of 
the tribes by our own measures. Can it be matter of surprise that they 
hear, with unmixed indignation, of what seems to them our ruthless pur- 
pose of expelling them from their country thus endeared ? They see that 
our professions are insincere ; that our promises have been broken ; that 
the happiness of the Indian is a cheap sacrifice to the acquisition of new 
lands ; and when attempted to be soothed by an assurance that the 
Eountry to which we propose to send them is desirable, they emphatically 
ask us : ' What new pledges can you give us that we shall not again be 
exiled when it is your wish to possess these lands?' It is easier to state 
\ihan to answer this question. A regard to consistency, apart from every 
other consideration, requires a change of measures. Either let him 
retain and enjoy his home, or, if he is to be driven from it, abstain from 
cherishing illusions we mean to disapv^-^oit, and thereby make him to feel 
more sensibly the extent oi his loscS." 



374 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The bill prepared by the secretary provided, (1.) A country ta be 
procured west of the Mississippi, and beyond the states and territories, 
for their future and permanent residence ; the right to the soil and pro- 
tection against the intrusion of white settlers to be guarantied to them. 
(2.) Their removal by individuals, or by portions of tribes, if the whole 
tribes were unwilling to remove. (3.) Establishing and maintaining a 
territorial government by the United States for their protection and 
civilization. (4.) If circumstances should ultimately justify it, the 
extinction of tribes and their amalgamation into one mass, and a distri- 
bution of property among the individuals, instead of its being held in 
common by a tribe. (5.) The condition of those that remain to be left 
unaltered. 

No definitive action, however, was had upon this bill ; nor was any 
proposition for the removal of the Indian tribes adopted during the 
administration of Mr. Adams. 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

RUSSIAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS ON THE PACIFIC COAST. OCCUPATION OF 

COLUMBIA RIVER. PUBLISHING THE LAWS. 

Portions of the coast on the Pacific ocean, north of the 42d degree 
of north latitude, were claimed by the United States, Russia and Great 
Rritain. But prior to the treaty of the 5th of April, 1824, between the 
United States and Russia, the territorial boundaries of neither of the 
claimants had been established. 

By a resolution of the house of representatives, February 16, 1822, 
the president was requested " to communicate to the house, whether any 
foreign government had claimed any part of the territory of the United 
States on the coast of the Pacific ocean, north of the 42d degree of lati- 
tude, and whether any regulations had been made by any foreign powers 
affecting the trade on that coast," &c. In compliance with this resolu- 
tion, the president, on the 15th of April, communicated the correspond- 
ence between our government and the governments of Russia and Great 
Britain. 

Pierre de Poletica, Russian minister at Washington, on the 11th of 
February, 1822, had transmitted to Mr. Adams, secretary of state, a 
printed copy of a regulation adopted by the Russian American company, 
and sanctioned by the emperor. This regulation interdicted the approach 
of all vessels except Russian, within one hundred Italian miles of the 



RUSSIAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS ON THE PACIFIC COAST. 375 

sliore of any territory claimed by that government, and assumed a right 
to the territory as far south as the 51st degree of north latitude. This 
territorial claim, as well as the right to exclude our vessels from the 
shore beyond the ordinary distance to which territorial jurisdiction 
extends, our government was unwilling to concede. 

Mr. Adams, in reply, said it had been expected that the boundary 
would have been arranged by treaty. And he asked explanations of the 
grounds of such claim and regulations, upon principles generally recog- 
nized by the laws and usages of nations. 

It was answered, that Russia based her territorial claims upon dis- 
coveries ; the first of which was dated back to the time of the emperor, 
Peter I. Captain Behring made his first voyage of discovery in 1728. 
In his second expedition, 1741, discoveries were made as far south as 
the 49th degree of north latitude ; and establishments were soon after 
formed by Russians along the coast. In 1799, the emperor, Paul I, 
granted to the Russian American company their first charter, which gave 
them the exclusive possession of the coast from the 55th degree to Beh- 
ring's strait, and permitted them to extend their discoveries south, and 
to form establishments, provided they did not encroach upon territory 
occupied by other powers. 

The treaty by which Spain ceded the Floridas, and certain territory 
west of the Mississippi, gave to the United States all that belonged to 
Spain north of the 42d degree, but did not define the northern boundary. 

From the foregoing facts it appeared, that the rights of Russia speci- 
fied in the regulations of the Russian American company, rested on the 
three bases required by the general law and usage of nations: (1.) The 
first discovery. (2.) First occupation. (3.) Peaceable and undisputed 
possession for more than fifty years. As Spain never had a title to ter- 
ritory beyond the line assigned for the limits of the Russian possessions, 
and as the United States had no other title than that acquired by the 
treaty of the 22d of February, 1819, above mentioned, the establishment 
of this line could not interfere with the just claims of the United States. 
The 51st degree had been selected, as being the mean point between the 
Russian establishment at New Archangel, under the 57th degree, and 
the American colony at the mouth of the Columbia river, under the 
46th degree. 

The prohibition of foreign vessels for so great a distance, was but a 
measure of prevention, and was directed against foreign adventurers who 
were not content with exercising an illicit trade on the coast, injurious 
to the rights of the Russian American company, but furnished arms and 
ammunition to the natives, exciting them likewise to resistance and re- 
volt against the authorities in the Russian possessions. A majority of 



376 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

these adventurers had been American citizens. Possessing territory 
also on the Asiatic side of the Pacific from the strait to the 45th degree 
of uorth latitude, Russia might exercise the rights of sovereignty over 
the whole sea, north of the 51st degree ! 

Mr. Adams dissented from the principle upon which Russia had ex- 
tended her claim to the 51st degree, viz., that it was equidistant from 
New Archangel and the mouth of the Columbia river. Since the limits 
prescribed by the emperor Paul to the Russian American company were 
fixed at the 55th degree, no settlement had been made justifiying any 
claim to territory south of that point. New Archangel, it was said, too, 
was not situated on the continent, but was a small settlement upon a 
email island, in latitude 57. With regard to the prohibition upon foreign 
vessels, Mr. A. said the vessels of the United States, had, during our 
existence as an independent nation, freely navigated those seas, and the 
right to navigate them was a part of that independence. Respecting 
the absurd suggestion that Russia might have made a close sea of the 
Pacific because she claims territory on both shores, he thought it sufii- 
cient to say, that the distance from shore to shore in latitude 51, was 
4,000 miles ! Nor could the United States admit the justice of the 
reason assigned for the prohibition. The right of our citizens to trade 
with the aboriginal natives beyond the territorial jurisdiction of other 
nation,T even in arms and munitions of war, was as clear and indisput- 
able as that of navigating the seas. And if any well founded charge had 
ever been made against our citizens for a violation of that right, it 
would have received the most pointed attention of the government. 

The Russian minister, in reply, adduced new arguments to establish 
the claims of his government tp the 51st degree. The great extent of 
the ocean did not invalidate the right to make it a close sea. The im- 
perial government, however, had never taken advantage of that right. 
As to the right claimed for our citizens of trading with the natives with- 
out the limits of Russian jurisdiction, his government did not think of 
limiting it; but if it should be extended beyond the 51st degree, it 
would meet with difficulties for which the American owners must accuse 
their own imprudence ! 

The negotiation, at the request of the imperial government, was sub- 
sequently transferred to St. Petersburgh, where a treaty was concluded 
the 5th of April, 1824, by our minister, Henry Middleton, and Count 
Nesselrode. By this treaty, the boundary line was established at 54 
degrees 40 minutes north latitude. The citizens of the United States 
were not to resort to any point where there was a Russian establishment 
without permission of the governor or commander : and the subjects of 
Russia were viudcr similai restrictions as to American establishments. 



OCCUPATION OF COLUMBIA RIVER. 377 

And for the term of ten years, the vessels of both parties were to have free 
admission into the interior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks upon the 
coast, for the purposes of fishing and trading with the natives. 

Mr. Monroe, in his annual message to congress, December 7, 1824, 
recommended the establishment of a military post at or near the mouth 
of the Columbia river, to protect our increased and increasing fisheries 
on the Pacific. A bill for this purpose was accordingly introduced into 
the house, with an additional provision, directing the president to open 
a port of entry in the territory, and empowering him to. appoint a gov- 
ernor, judges and other ofiicers for the territory. These provisions 
were, however, struck out of the bill. The establishment of a territorial 
government was considered premature; and the opening of a port of 
entry, and the consequent demand of duties from British traders, would 
interfere with the treaty with Great Britain, by which a free and open 
trade was guarantied to both powers for a certain term of years. This 
gave rise to a discussion, in congress, of the claims of Great Britain on 
the north-west coast. 

It was held that Great Britain had no just claim to any part of the 
territory. Spanish navigators had first discovered the coast as far as 
the 58th degree of north latitude. The claim of Spain, founded on first 
discovery, became ours by the treaty of the 22d of April, 1819. We 
had claimed the country before the war of 1812, as had also Russia and 
England. But their titles were mere pretenses. Our government had 
sent out Lewis and Clark to explore the country ; and soon after, our 
fur traders took possession near the mouth of the Columbia or Oregon 
river, and in 1810 built there the little town called Astoria. After the 
commencement of the war, the British traders, aided by the Indians, 
drove our traders from the country, and held it until the treaty of 
Ghent, when, according to the stipulation of that treaty, it was restored. 
Possession was taken by Mr. Prevost, agent of the United States, who 
also took possession of the British post near the bay ; the English set- 
tlers, however, protesting against our right to take it. 

Immediately after the departure of Mr. Prevost, the British flag was 
again hoisted, and the country occupied as British territory. This oc- 
curred a few days before the treaty of London was signed, Oct. 20, 1818. 
By the provisions of that treaty, the territory claimed by either party, 
within its waters, was to be free and open, for ten years, to the vessels, 
citizens and subjects of the two powers; but the treaty was not to bo 
construed to the prejudice of the claim of either party. 

The establishment of a military post to occupy the country, was urged 
as necessary to enable us to preserve our claina. At the end of ten 
years, Great Britain might insist on the parties being put back to their 



378 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

former condition ; and although holding by wrong, yet being in actual 
possession, when the treaty was concluded, she might represent our righta 
during the joint occupancy as a mere lease; and neglecting to reoccupy 
the country, we should lose an important advantage in hereafter treating 
to reclaim it. Great commercial advantages, too, it was believed, would 
be gained by the occupation of the country. It would enable us to com- 
mand the trade of China, and other parts of eastern Asia, and the north 
Pacific. A military post at the mouth of the Columbia river, with 
trading houses in the territory, would command the fur trade ; and the 
fur trade and traders would command the Indians, and be the surest 
means of preserving peace with them. 

Fears had been expressed that our confederacy might become too 
widely extended. Although the federative system was well adapted for 
the government of an extensive nation, there were limits which it would 
not be safe to pass. Our system might properly include all who had a 
mutual interest in being united. To carry it farther, would weaken the 
bond of union, and endanger the confederacy. But what might be the 
fate of the federation if extended beyond the Stony Mountains, or what 
might be the condition of the people of Oregon centuries hence, was not 
a matter of immediate concern. Posterity would know how to take care 
of itself, and to provide for its own dangers. 

To induce the settlement of the Oregon territory, a section had been 
inserted in the bill, granting land to the settlers. This section was 
struck out, and the bill, (Dec. 23,) passed the house, 113 to 57. In 
the senate, the bill was taken up for consideration on the 25th of Feb- 
ruary, 1825, and, without a discussion of its merits, laid on the table 
until the next day, when the consideration was resumed. It was sup- 
ported by Mr. Barbour, in a short speech, which was followed by one 
of greater length from Mr. Dickerson. 

Upon the question of the title of the United States to the territory 
proposed to be settled, the speakers did not essentially diifer. Mr. 
Barbour said, the very full exposition of our claim given by the Ameri- 
can plenipotentiary to the court of St. James, (Mr. Rush,) left but little 
for him to add on this point. By a comparison of that state paper with 
the counter statement of the representative of that court, the claim of 
Great Britain, as to the territory on the Oregon, was without founda- 
tion. He believed we had in the spirit of friendship and forbearance, 
made a sacrifice to Russia of five degrees of our just claim, and in the 
same spirit had been willing to make an ecpal sacrifice to Great Britain ; 
and he hoped she would close with the terms proposed. The United 
States could yield no farther : consequently, our claim must be held as 
unquestionable many degrees to the north of the proposed settlement. 



OCCUPATION OF COLUMBIA RIVER. 379 

Mr. Barbour, recurring to the pretensions of the European nations to 
portions of this territory, said, Spain, under whom we claimed, had 
unquestionably the undivided credit of first discovery, and so far the 
best title ; to which she superadded the grant of the head of the Christian 
world, in the person of the Pope : and however ridiculous the latter 
might now seem, it was at that time respected by the civilized world. But 
this respect had yielded eventually to cupidity; and the other nations of 
Europe had proceeded to appropriate such portions as accident or cir- 
cumstances enabled them to do, in opposition to the claims and the 
protests of Spain. 

In favor of the proposed establishment, Mr. B. mentioned its obvious 
advantage to our navigating interest in time of peace. It would furnish 
a friendly asylum for our vessels in an otherwise strange, distant, and 
perhaps hostile region. It would also be valuable as a depot for inter- 
nal commerce, and highly advantageous in the event of war. 

With reference to the apprehended dangers of an undue extension of 
our empire, Mr. Barbour said : " Fifty years ago, and the valley of the 
Mississippi was like the present condition of the country of the Oregon. 
It is now teeming with a mighty population — a free and happy people. 
Their march onward to the country of the setting sun, is irresistible. I 
will not disguise, that I look with the deepest anxiety on this vast exten- 
sion of our empire, and to its possible effects on our political institutions. 
Whatever they may be, however, our forefathers decided the experiment 
should be made. * * * Our advance in political science has already 
cancelled the dogmas of theory. We have already ascertained, by the 
happy combination of a national and state governments, but above all, by 
a wise arrangement of the representative s^'stem, that republics arc not 
necessarily limited to a small territory ; and that a government, thus 
arranged, produces not only more happiness, but more stability and more 
energy, than those the most arbitrary. Whether it is capable of indefi- 
nite extent, must be left to posterity to decide. But in the most unfa- 
vorable result, a division, by necessity, from its unwieldy, extent — an 
event, I would devoutly hope, afar off — we even then can console our- 
selves with the reflection, that all the parts of the great whole will have 
been peopled by our kindred, carrying with them the same language, 
habits, and unextinguishable devotion to liberty and republican institu- 
tions." 

Mr. Dickerson, in opposition to the bill, said, that our having acquired 
this territory, and the march of population being toward that region, 
imposed upon congress no obligation to provide for its occupation or 
population, unless the interests of the United States should require it. 
As yet, we had extended our laws to territories only that were to become 



380 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

states of the union Oregon could never become one of the United 
States. 

The bill was opposed also as being inconsistent with our treaty with 
Great Britain, by which any portion of the country claimed by either 
party, should, with its harbors and other navigable waters, be free and open 
to the vessels and citizens of the two powers. Although we thought our 
claim incontestible to the 49th degree, Great Britain had already ex- 
tended her settlements to the Columbia river, and had set up a pretense 
of claim to the territory north of the Columbia to its mouth. It was not 
for congress to ascertain or limit the extent of the claim. The treaty 
recognized a claim to some undefined part of the territory; and until after 
its expiration in 1 828, it would be improper to take possession of this terri- 
tory by military force, or to establish a port of entry, as was proposed 
by the bill. 

The president — so the bill provided — was to cause a fort to be erected 
on either the left or the right bank of the river, as he should deem expedi- 
ent, and to cause the Indian title to be extinguished to a tract of land 
thirty miles square, or 900 square miles, including the fort. This tract 
ought to include both banks of the river, and a considerable portion of 
territory claimed by the British government. As yet, that government 
had done nothing to contravene the provisions of the treaty; bul would 
they quietly see us take possession of the country, erect fortifications, 
purchase the Indian title to a large tract of land, and establish ports of 
entry ? The joint occupation was intended to prevent disputes ; but the 
measure proposed would lead to immediate collisions. If we were enti- 
tled to the whole of the territory, let all peaceable means be employed 
to obtain our rights, before we attempted to enforce them by military 
occupation. If the two governments would make a perpetual treaty, to 
take no farther possession of that territory than might be necessary for 
trading with Indians, they would do more for the cause of humanity 
than had been done in the present age. 

■ Nor did he, (Mr. D.,) think the measure was required at this time for 
the protection of our shipping and our commerce. He contended that 
neither as a colony nor as a state, could that country be of any essential 
benefit to the union ; he therefore thought it inexpedient to adopt any 
measure for its occupation and settlement. He repeated the declaration, 
that Oregon would never become a member of the union ; and he under- 
took to show the diflGiculty if not the impossibility of obtaining from it 
a representation in congress. 

Estimating the distance from the mouth of the Columbia river to 
Washington at 4,G50 miles, a member of congress from the state of Ore- 
gon must travel, going to and returning from the seat of government, 



PUBLISHING THE LAWS. 381 

9,300 miles. Supposing him to travel at the rate of 30 miles per day, 
and allowing for Sundays, 350 days of the year would be required to go 
and return. This would allow him a fortnight to rest himself at Wash- 
ington before commencing his journey home. As a considerable part of 
the way was over rugged mountains, covered the greater portion of the 
year with a great depth of snow, he thought traveling at the rate of 30 
miles per day a hard duty. Yet a young, able-bodied senator might 
travel from Oregon to "Washington and back, once a year ; but he could 
do nothing else. He might come more expeditiously, however, by water 
round Cape Horn, or through Behring's Strait, round the north coast of 
this continent to Baffin's Bay, thence through Davis's Strait to the At- 
lantic, and so on to Washington. Tt was true, he said, this passage had 
not yet been discovered, except on our maps ; but it would be as soon as 
Oregon would be a state. 

Mr. Dickerson concluded by moving that the bill be laid on the table; 
and the motion was carried : ayes, 19 ; noes, 17. 

On the 1st of February, 1827, a resolution was offered by Mr. Saun- 
ders, of North Carolina, calling upon the secretary of state for a list 
of the newspapers in which the laws were directed to be published 
during the years 1825, 1826, and 1827, designating the changes which 
had been made, and stating the reasons for each change. This resolu- 
tion gave rise to a debate, marked no less distinctly by its party char- 
acter, than by the acrimonious feeling of members. It was intended as 
an animadversion upon the conduct of the secretary of state, who, it 
was alleged, had, from personal and political motives, made certain 
changes in newspapers selected to publish the laws and public adver- 
tisements. 

This exercise of the power of patronage was broadly reprobated by 
the advocates of the resolution. It was calculated to control the free- 
dom of the press, and to enlist that powerful instrument in the service 
of the administration. In the distribution of the public printing, the 
rule should bo to retain an individual as printer of the laws, when his 
employment was desired by upright men of republican principles, and 
when there were no other reasons than those of a personal or political 
nature for taking it from him. So to apply the patronage of the gov- 
ernment as to harmonize eighty-two presses in praising every act of the 
administration, and to punish them with the loss of patronage if they 
dared censure its measures, was to form a government press, which was 
more alarming to the liberties of the people, than the organization of the 
whole of our standing army formed into a guard of the palace. 

The resolution was opposed as useless, so far as regarded the papers 
employed in 1825 and 1826; information for these years and for 1824 



382 ' TIIE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

having been communicated to the house last year. A call for the rea- 
sons which influenced a public officer in the discho,rge of a duty assigned 
him by law, was believed to be without precedent in the annals of legis- 
lation. The act of 1820 required the secretary to cause laws and 
treaties to be published in newspapers, not exceeding three in each state 
and territory, and one in the District of Columbia ; leaving it to his 
discretion to employ one paper to-day and another to-morrow. The 
power, if abused, could be taken from the secretary, and bestowed upon 
some other person or persons. But the call for his motives was impro- 
per and unjust. With equal propriety might the president, or all the 
heads of departments, be called on for the causes or reasons for their 
acts, or the mover of the resolution for the reasons which prompted him 
to oflfer it. 

It was held to be proper for the secretary to employ his friends rather 
than his enemies. Mr. Jefferson had acted on this principle. He had 
removed faithful public officers on purely political grounds ; and, as in the 
case of the collector of the port of New Haven, against the wishes of a large 
majority of the people of the district, as expressed in a memorial to the 
president. The present administration had not carried the principle so 
far as had been done by Mr. Jefferson. Of the eighty or more papers, 
only sixteen had been changed. Of these changes, a number were 
known to have been made from geographical considerations ; and in four 
instances, the persons displaced and those appointed were of the same 
political party. And there might be other changes which had been 
made from necessity. 

The debate on this subject was continued until the 26th of February, 
when it was abruptly terminated ; a few days only of the session 
remaining, and the press of business not permitting a farther discus- 
sion of the resolution. If the reader will bear in mind the sentiments 
of the parties to this discussion, he will soon see how easily the opinions 
of men and parties aje changed by a reverse of circumstances. 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

WEST INDIA TRADE. NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 

. The illiberal commercial policy of Great Britain established by her 
numerous navigation acts, has been the subject of remark in preceding 
chapters. Although by the conventions (treaties) of 1815 and 1818, 
reciprocity of commerce had been established between the United Status 



WEST INDIA TRADE. 383 

and the territories of Great Britain in Europe, for a period of ten years 
from the last mentioned date, the exclusion of our vessels from her 
colonies was continued. Hence an act was passed by congress in April, 
1818, closing our ports against British vessels arriving from any port 
or place in any British" territory to which our vessels were not admitted. 

But as the portsof those American colonies which had occasionally, 
from interest or necessity, been opened to our vessels, were not consid- 
ered as included in the act of 1818, an act was passed in May, 1820, 
extending the interdiction to all her American colonies. This measure 
was not without effect. The West India colonies had been supplied 
with our products through the British North American colonies, into 
which they were admitted, and thence carried in British vessels. But 
the closing of this channel of trade, through which the West India col- 
onies had obtained supplies of lumber and provisions, operated with 
severity upon these colonies. Memorials were addressed to parliament 
presenting their distress ; and Great Britain was induced to relax her 
rigorous policy. 

On being informed that parliament was about to open the colonial 
ports to our vessels, congress passed an act the 6th of May, 1822, in 
anticipation ; authorizing the president, on satisfactory evidence being 
given him that those ports had been thus opened, to proclaim the ports 
of the United States opened to British vessels employed in this trade, 
under such reciprocal rules and regulations as he might, by such procla- 
mation, make and publish. In June, the anticipated act of parliament 
was passed, by which certain enumerated ports were opened to vessels 
of the United States; and, in conformity to the act of the 6th of May, 
the president, on the 24th of August, issued his proclamation, declaring 
the ports of the United States open to British vessels coming from those 
ports in the British West India and North American colonies, with the 
productions of these colonies. 

As that provision of the act of May, 1822, which gave the president 
authority to issue his proclamation, was to continue in force only till the 
expiration of the next session of congress, an act was passed the 1st of 
March, 1823, continuing the discriminating duties on imposts and ton- 
nage, but authorizing the president, by proclamation, to remove them on 
satisfactory proof being given him, that no higher duties were imposed 
on our vessels and merchandise than on those coming from other places. 
The proof required by the act not having been communicated to the 
president, no proclamation was issued. The tonnage upon British ves 
sels was one dollar per ton ; upon American vessels, six cents, making 
the discrimination in favor of the latter, ninety-four cents. Great 
Britain then, by an order in council, issued June 17, 1823, imposed a 



384 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

retaliatory discriminating tonnage duty of equal amount, ninety-four 
cents per ton. 

The administration was charged with having needlessly and unjustly 
provoked Great Britain to this act of retaliation, which, its opponents 
said, might and ought to have been prevented by the removal of our dis- 
criminating duty. We had therefore no reason to complain of having 
been met with a duty equal to our own. To this it was replied, that the 
duty upon British vessels was more than counterbalanced by restrictions 
and disadvantages imposed upon our trade with the colonies prior to the 
enactment of this additional burden. It was also claimed, on our part, 
that American goods as well as the vessels conveying them, should be 
admitted into the colonies on the same terms as those of Great Britain : 
and the act of 1823 had accordingly adopted this principle. Great 
Britain, considering her colonies as integral parts of her empire, insisted 
that she should not be required to exact duties on goods carried from 
one British port to another. 

In the hope of effecting an amicable arrangement by treaty, a nego- 
tiation was opened by our government through our minister at London. 
But during a suspension of the negotiation, which, however, it was 
mutually understood, was to be speedily resumed, other acts of parlia- 
ment were passed, in June and July, 1825, again opening certain colo- 
nial ports upon new terms and conditions ; but providing that these 
ports should be closed against any nation which should not accept these 
terms. Our government did not accept them, for the reasons, as was 
alleged, that those acts had never been oflBcially communicated ; that 
they were so obscure as not to be understood, having received different 
constructions by the British officers in the different colonies ; and that 
pledges having been given to resume negotiation, it was deemed expe- 
dient to await the result of that negotiation, rather than to subscribe 
implicitly to terms the import of which was not clear, and which the 
British authorities themselves in this hemisphere were not prepared to 
explain. 

Immediately after the close of the session of congress in May, 1826, 
Albert Gallatin was despatched as minister to Loudon, in the hope of 
effecting a satisfactory arrangement. Notwithstanding Great Britain 
herself had requested the appointment of an additional minister — Mr. 
King being unable, from ill health, to conduct the negotiation — two 
days after Mr. Gallatin's arrival, and before his credentials had been 
presented, an order in council was issued cutting off all negotiation, and 
prohibiting all intercourse with her West India colonies from the first 
iay of December following. 

To countervail this rigorous measure, bills similar in their provisions 



WEST INDIA TRADE. 385 

were introduced in both houses of congress at the next session, proposing 
to shut our ports, after the 30th of September, against all vessels coming 
from all British colonies or possessions not included in the general 
treaty, unless the colonial ports should be reopened to our vessels on 
certain prescribed terms. Neither of the bills, however, became a law. 

The act of March 1, 1823, provided, that if at any time our trade 
and intercourse with the enumerated colonial ports should bo prohibited 
by Great Britain, proclamation of the fact having been made by the pre- 
sident, the prohibitory provisions of the acts of 1818 and 1820 were to 
be revived. Congress having failed to adopt any countervailing mea- 
sure, the president, on the 17th of March, 1827, made the necessary pro- 
clamation, and declared the trade and intercourse with the said ports to 
be prohibited. 

The West India question had assumed a party character. Our disad- 
vantages were said to be the result of a mistaken policy by the adminis- 
tration and its predecessors. The want of concession, the extravagance 
of our demands, the rejection of fair overtures from Great Britain, tardy 
legislation, and an unwarrantable reliance on negotiation, were among 
the alleged hinderances to a favorable adjustment. But whatever of 
neglect or unskillful management might have been justly chargeable to 
the administration, the previous history of the commercial policy of 
Great Britain, her persisting refusal to the United States of a fair par- 
ticipation in the colonial trade, and her declining farther negotiation in 
1826, after a previous pledge to resume it, without giving any other rea- 
son than was found in the remark of Mr. Canning, that " he would not 
be drawn into the discussion of a feubject that had already been 
exhausted;" — afforded strong presumptive evidence of her indisposition 
to arrange the trade with us on equitable terms. 

Ever intent on protecting her navigating interest, the next measure 
of Great Britain was an act of parliament authorizing the inland intro- 
duction from the United States into Canada, free of duty, of ashes, 
staves, lumber, horses, fresh provisions, and sundry other productions, to 
be thence carried in British vessels to England and the West Indies, as 
Canadian produce. And the more effectually to cripple our navigation 
and improve her own, the duties on these articles coming from the United 
States direct, were largely increased, while from Canada they were admit- 
ted under a very light duty. A letter from a mercantile house in Liver- 
pool received in this country, said : " The object of these arrangements 
is to monopolize the carrying trade ; and in them is to be found the true 
secret why the ministry declined to negotiate respecting the West India 
trade. Although they had pledged themselves to adjust the matter by 
negotiation in 1824, and renewed the pledge in 1825, in 1826 they deter- 

25 



386 THE AldERrcAN STATESMAN. 

mined to change their policy ; and the clamors of the shipping interest, 
though unjust, urged them into it in an ungracious manner : and if you 
had accepted their terms, they would, when they determined to change 
the system, have found means to evade the spirit of that act by some 
other." 

The expectations, on the part of Great Britain, concerning the effects 
of this measure, wore materially disappointed. Our produce still found 
a market in the British islands by way of the neutral islands, to which 
it was transported in American vessels ; and thence it was reshippcd to 
the British islands. Hence our navigation was not very sensibly affected ; 
and our exports to the West Indies, instead of their having been dimin- 
ished, were actually increased, notwithstanding the prohibition, though 
probably not in consequence of it. On the other hand, the Canadians 
complained that the arrangement had not secured to them the advantage 
of supplying the West India islands ; and the extra cost of this indirect 
trade fell upon British consumers. 

This arrangement, however, did not long continue. New treaties were 
concluded by Mr. Gallatin and the British commissioners at London, 
the 6th of August, 1827. The ratifications were exchanged at London, 
April 2, 1828; and the treaties were proclaimed by the president the 
5th of May following. By these treaties it was provided, that the treaties 
of 1815 and 1818, which by their terms were limited to a period of 
ten years from the date of the latter, should be continued for another 
term of ten years. 

A convention was also concluded, by which the parties agreed to settle 
the boundary line, by submitting the question to some friendly power for 
arbitration. The king of the Netherlands was selected as the umpire. 
His award, which was made in January, 1831, was not satisfactory to 
the United States. In fact, he did not decide upon the question sub- 
mitted to him. Instead of deciding between the conflicting claims of the 
parties, he selected a new line claimed by neither party. Great Britain,, 
having been awarded, though not all she claimed, yet what she most 
desired — a free communication between her provinces — gave her assent 
to the decision. The subject was submitted to the senate, in January, 
1832. That body, after having duly considered the question, advised the 
president to open a new negotiation for the adjustment of the boundary. 

A subject of negotiation between the United States and Great Britain, 
was the navigation of the river St. Lawrence, commenced before the 
close of Mr. Monroe's administration. In his annual message of Decem- 
ber, 1823, in connection with the subject of the north-eastern boundary, 
Mr. Monroe says : " It appearing from long experience, that no satisfac- 
tory arrangement could be formed of the commercial intercourse between 



NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 3gT 

the United States and the British colonies in this hemisphere by legisla- 
tive acts, while each party pursued its own course without agreement or 
concert with the other, a proposal has been made to the British govern- 
ment to regulate this commerce by treaty, as it has been to arrange, in 
like manner, the just claim )f the citizens of the United States inhabit- 
ing the states and territories bordering on the lakes and rivers which 
empty into the St. Lawrence, to the navigation of that river to the ocean. 
For these and other objects of high importance to the interests of both 
parties, a negotiation has been opened with the British government 
which, it is hoped, will have a satisfactory result." 

On the 7th of January, 1 828, Mr. Adams, then president, in com- 
pliance with a resolution of the house of the 17th of December, trans- 
mitted to that body the correspondence with the government of Great 
Britain relative to the free navigation of the St. Lawrence. This cor- 
respondence derives much of its importance from the principle of public 
law which forms the chief subject of discussion. 

Mr. Adams, secretary of state, in a letter to Mr. Rush, minister at 
London, in 1823, suggested that the navigation of the St. Lawrence 
might be claimed by our citizens as a right, which, he thought, might 
" be established upon the sound and general principles of the law of 
nature." If the right had not been distinctly asserted in negotiation 
with the British government, it was because the benefits of it had been 
tacitly conceded. This right was asserted upon the principles which 
were asserted when our right to the navigation of the Mississippi was 
in question. The people had the natural right of communicating with 
the ocean, by the only outlet provided by nature, from the waters bord- 
ering upon their shores. It was admitted that the possession of both 
the shores of a river at its mouth had been held to give the right of ob- 
structing or interdicting the navigation of it to the people of other 
nations, inhabiting the banks of the river above the boundary of that 
in possession of its mouth. But the exclusive right of jurisdiction over 
a river, Mr Adams said, originated in the social compact, and was a 
right of sovereignty. The right of navigating the river was a right of 
nature, preceding it in point of time, and which the sovereign rio-ht of 
one nation could not annihilate, as belonging to the people of another. 

By the act of parliament of June 24th, 1822, the people of the 
United States enjoyed the navigation from the ocean to Quebec ; and by 
an act of August 5th, 1822, above that port. But by a discretionary 
power given to the colonial governments in Canada, the latter of these 
concessions might be withdrawn, by excepting any of the Canadian 
ports from those to which our vessels were made admissible by tbat act; 
f that our enjoyment of the navigation of this river was contingent 



888 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

upon British permission. And the duties imposed by the act upon all 
those of our exports which could render the trade profitable, were 
prohibitory. 

The grounds of our claim were duly presented by Mr. Rush. He 
urged the consideration also, that " the exclusive right possessed by 
Great Britain over both banks of this river, had been won for her by 
the cooperation of the people who now form the United States. Their 
exertions, their treasure, their blood, were profusely embarked in every 
campaign of the old French war ; a war which, but for the aid of New 
England, New York, and Pennsylvania, if no more of tho states, would 
probably not have terminated when it did, in the conqucbt of Canada 
from France. * * * Xhe predecessors of the present inhabitants 
of those states had borne a constant and heavy burden in that war, and 
had acquired, simultaneously with the then parent state, the right of 
descending the stream, on the hypothesis, assumed for the moment, of 
their not having possessed it before ; a right of peculiar importance to 
them, from their local position and necessities," Thus a title had been 
established by joint acquisition. Several quotations from Vattel and 
Grotius were made in order to sustain the claim of the United States. 

Mr. Rush, in one of his papers to the British government, said : 
" Having seen the grounds of necessity and reason upon which the 
right of so great and growing a j^ojmlation to seek its only natural 
pathway to the ocean rests, it may be expected that they should 
be supported by the established principles of international law." He 
cites Vattel, as follows : " Nature, who designs her gifts for the common 
advantage of men, does not allow of their being kept from their use when 
they can be furnished with them, without any prejudice to the proprietor, 
and by leaving still untouched all the utility and advantages he is capa- 
ble of receiving from his rights." Again : " Property can not deprive 
nations of the general right of traveling over the earth in order to have 
a communication with each other, for carrying on trade and other just 
reasons." " A passage ought also to be granted for merchandise ; and 
as this may in common be done without inconvenience, to refuse it with- 
out just reason, is injuring a nation, and endeavoring to deprive it of the 
means of carrying on a trade with other states." And again: "If 
neitlier the one nor the other of two nations, near a river, can prove that 
it settled first, it is to be supposed that they both came there at the 
same time, since neither can give a reason of preference ; and in this 
case the dominion of each will be extended to the middle of the river." 
Hence, Mr. Rush argued, that, if the settlements, having been m.ade by 
the two nations £,t the same time, gave them equal dominion, " by even a 
stronger reason would simultaneous acquisition confer equality of pass- 



NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 389 

age." To the same effect from Grotius : " Upon this foundatioA of com- 
mon right, a free passage through countries, rivers, or over any part of 
the sea, which belong to some particular people, ought to be allowed to 
those who require it for the necessary occasions of life, whether those 
occasions be in quest of settlements, after being driven from their own 
country, or to trade with a remote nation?'^ " A free passage ought to 
be allowed, not only to persons but to merchandise ; . . . a permission 
which, for the interest of society, should be maintained ; nor can it be 
said that any one is injured by it; for though he may thereby be 
deprived of exclusive gain, yet the loss of what is not his due, as a mat- 
ter of right, can never be considered as a damage, or the violation of a 
claim." 

Hence, our minister claimed, on the ground of paramount interest and 
necessity to our citizens, and on that of natural right founded on this 
necessity, a full and free navigation of this river, from its source to the sea. 

The British plenipotentiaries expressed their surprise at the claim of 
the United States, on the ground of right. It required an enlarged view 
of what one nation owed in courtesy to another, to justify the British 
government in entering on the discussion of a claim so novel and exten- 
sive. A right claimed on one side without qualification, leaves no room 
for friendly concession on the other. As a concession on the part of 
Great Britain, for which they expected an equivalent, and as such only, 
they were willing to treat with the United States. They replied at 
length to the arguments of Mr. Rush, and alleged that he had made a 
wrong application of the authorities quoted. The right of navigating 
this river, alleged to be a right of nature, preexistent in point of time, 
and incapable of annihilation, could be no other than what is generally 
designated in the law of nations as a perfect right, which is one that 
exists independent of treaty ; which necessarily arises from the law of 
nature ; which is common to all independent nations, and can never be 
denied or violated by any state without a breach of the law of nations. 
Such was the right to navigate the ocean without molestation in time of 
peace. Applying these principles, now universally admitted, to the case 
of the St. Lawrence, the American government maintained that Great 
Britain, possessing both shores of the river at its mouth, would be no 
more justified in controlling American navigation on that river, than on 
the high seas. But falling under the denomination of an imjoerfect right, 
it became subject to considerations entirely different. 

The case of the Mississippi, it was said, was not in point. Its naviga- 
tion had been opened to British subjects by the treaty of 1763, concluded 
after a war in which Great Britain had been successful. France had 
made this concession from the same motives as had induced her to cede 



390 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Canada to Great Britain. The agreement respecting that river made a 
part of the general provisions as to the western boundary of the British 
American possessions, bywhich the whole left side of the Mississippi was 
ceded to Great Britain, except the town and island of New Orleans. 
This reservation had been admitted on the express condition, that the 
navigation of the whole channel should be open to British subjects. The 
very fact of its having been thought necessary to insert this stipulation 
in the treaty, in consequence of France having retained possession of 
both banks of the river at a single post, led irresistibly to an hiference 
the reverse of what was maintained by the American plenipotentiary. 

Nor was the right founded upon acquired title conceded by Great 
Britain. If the liberty of navigating the St. Lawrence, which the people 
of the United States enjoyed when a part of the British empire, contin- 
ued to belong to them after their separation from the mother country, 
the subjects of Great Britain would have an equal right, in common with 
American citizens, to the use of the navigable rivers of the United States, 
which they enjoyed when both countries were united under the same 
government. By the treaty which acknowledged the independence of 
the United States, a perpetual line of demarkation had been drawn 
between the two powers, no longer connected by any other ties than those 
of amity and conventional agreement. The people of the United States, 
thus separated from Great Britain, could not possibly retain any portion 
of the sovereignty of the British empire. 

Mr. Gallatin, in September and October, 1827, wrote to Mr. Clay, 
that the government of Great Britain was still unwilling to entertain 
any proposition respecting the navigation of the St. Lawrence founded 
on the right claimed by the United States to navigate that river to the 
sea ; and he advised, that, whilst the trade with the British West Indies 
remained interdicted, the intercourse by land or inland navigation with 
the North American British provinces be left to be regulated by the 
laws of each country, respectively. The measures of which our citizens 
had complained, no longer existed. The warehousing system had been 
extended to the ports of Montreal, Quebec, and St. Johns, and places of 
deposit were allowed for American produce, free of duty, in case of ex- 
portation ; which was all that we could, in that respect, ask as a matter 
of right. The navigation between Montreal and Quebec, either to the 
sea, or from the sea, could not now be obtained by treaty stipulation 
without what would be considered a disclaimer of the right. 

Mr. Clay, in his instructions to Mr. Gallatin, having said that the 
president could not consent to any treaty by which the United States 
should renounce the right of navigating the St. Lawrence and Great 
Britain persisting in her refusal to acknowledge this right, the negotia- 
tion was unsuccessful. 



NOMINATION OF GEN. JACKSON. 391 



CHAPTEK XXX. * 

NOMINATION OF GEN. JACKSON. MORE OF THE " COALITION." JACKSON'8 

LETTERS ON THE TARIFF AND INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 

Soon after the election of Mr. Adams, it became apparent that he was 
destined to encounter, alone, in the next presidential campaign, the oppo- 
sition of his most formidable rival in 1824. 

As early as October, 1825, Gen. Jackson was nominated by the legis- 
lature of Tennessee as a candidate for president in 1 828. After a long 
preamble, in which the legislature disclaim being " influenced by the 
motive of state pride or personal considerations," they resolve, " That 
Gen. Andrew Jackson, of this state, be recommended to the freemen of 
the United States, as a fellow-citizen, who, by his numerous and faithful 
public services in the cabinet and in the field, his energy and decision, 
his political qualifications, and strict adherence to the principles of repub- 
licanism, merits to be elected to the office of chief magistrate of this 
union, at the next presidential election." This resolution was said to 
have been unanimously adopted in one house, and with but one dissent- 
ing voice in the other. 

On the next day, (October 7,) a series of resolutions was adopted, 
expressive of the respect and attachment entertained by the legislature 
towards the general, and of their purpose to receive him in the repre- 
sentative hall on the day next after his arrival at the seat of government ; 
and the speakers, on behalf of the two houses, were required to deliver 
to him addresses, expressing the satisfaction of the legislature in relation 
to the course he pursued during the pendency of the late presidential 
election. 

The general arrived at Murfreesborough on the 13th, and the next 
day he was conducted by a committee of the legislature to the hall, and 
addressed by the speakers of the two houses ; to which he made an appro- 
priate reply, and then handed in a resignation of his seat in the senate 
of the United States. 

He assigned as reasons for his resignation, the fatigue of traveling to 
and from Washington, and the fact that nothing of great national impor- 
tance was likely to come before congress, except the proposition to amend 
the constitution in relation to the election of president. He intimated 
that he might have thought it his duty to continue in the senate to aid 
in efi'ecting such alteration. But having been apprised of his nomi- 
nation, he could no longer hesitate as to the course he should pursue, and 



392 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

accordingly asked to be excused from any farther service in the councils 
of the nation ; saying, that he " could not consent to urge or encourage 
an alteration which might wear the appearance of being induced by sel- 
fish considerations." 

He then proceeded to make some suggestions in reference to the 
amendment proposed to be made. He thought some new barrier to the 
encroachments of power was necessary. "There is no truth," he ob- 
served, " more conclusively stamped upon all the state constitutions, as 
well as the federal constitution, than that which requires the great de- 
partments of power, the legislative, judicial, and executive, to be kept 
separate and apart. * * * Gratitude to the founders of our happy 
government, can not be lessened by honest efforts, on our part, to im- 
prove, or rather to fortify, the blessings which have been transmitted to 
us, with such additional safeguards as experience has proved to be 
necessary. 

" Upon this principle, I venture fully to accord with you in the con- 
templated change proposed to the constitution ; and indeed would go 
farthei With a view to sustain more effectually in practice the axiom 
which divides the three great classes of power into independent, consti- 
tutional checks, I would impose a provision rendering any member of 
congress ineligible to office, under the general government, during the 
term for which he was elected, and for two years thereafter, except in 
cases of judicial office; and these I would except for the reason, that 
vacancies in this department are not frequent occurrences, and because 
no barrier should be interposed in selecting, to the bench, men of the 
first talents and integrity." * * * 

" The effect of such a constitutional provision is obvious. By it 
congress, in a considerable degree, would be free from that connection 
with the executive department which at present gives strong ground of 
apprehension and jealousy on the part of the people. Members, instead 
of being liable to be withdrawn from legislating on the great interests 
of the nation, through prospects of executive patronage, would be more 
liberally confided in by their constituents ; while their vigilance would 
be less interrupted by party feelings and party excitements. Calcula- 
tion from intrigue or management would fail ; nor would their delibera- 
tion or their investigation of subjects consume so much time. The 
morals of the country would be improved ; and virtue, uniting with the 
labors of the representatives, and with the official ministers of the law, 
would tend to perpetuate the honor and glory of the government. 

" But if this change in the constitution should not be obtained, and 
important offices continue to devolve on the representatives in congress, 
it rco[uires no depth of thought to be convinced, that corruption will be- 



NOMINATION OF GEN. JACKSON. 393 

come the order of the day ; and that, under the garb of conscientioua 
sacrifices to establish precedents for the public good, evils of serious 
importance to the freedom and prosperity of the republic may arise. It 
is through this channel that the people may expect to be attacked in 
their constitutional sovereignty, and where tyranny may well be appre- 
hended to spring up in some favorable emergency. Against such inroads, 
every guard ought to be interposed ; and none better occurs than that 
of closing the suspected avenue with some necessary constitutional 
restriction. We know human nature to be prone to evil ; we are early 
taught to pray that we may not be led into temptation ; and hence the 
opinion that, by constitutional provision, all avenues to temptation, on 
the part of our political servants, should be closed. 

" As, by a resolution of your honorable body, you have thought pro- 
per again to present my name to the American people, I must entreat 
to be excused from any farther service in the senate, and to suggest, in 
conclusion, that it is due to myself to practice upon the maxims recom- 
mended to others ; and hence feel constrained to retire from a situation 
where temptations may exist, and suspicions may arise of the exercise 
of an influence tending to my own aggrandizement." 

This nomination of Gen. Jackson by the legislature of his own state, 
was early followed by nominations in other parts of the country. A 
large portion of the friends of Mr. Crawford, having had a stronger re- 
pugnance to Gen. Jackson than to any other candidate at the last election, 
were for a time unwilling to unite with the friends of the latter. There 
being, however, no hope of succeeding with any other candidate, such 
union was at length efi'eeted ; and the organization of the opposition to 
Mr. Adams may be considered as having been completed early in 1827. 

Although the excitement produced by the union of the friends of 
Adams and Clay in the election of president had experienced some 
abatement, the subject had by no means been permitted to slumber. 
The term, " coalition party," had acquired a common use among the 
opposition in designating the friends and supporters of the administra- 
tion. "Coalition" — "bargain" — "corruption" — were as familiar as 
household words. As electioneering arguments, they had been found too 
effective not to be employed in the attempt to overthrow the administra- 
tion. Much of their efficiency was derived from facts and circumstances 
which furnished at least some apparent ground for the accusation. 

In April, 1827, whether from a design to influence the approaching 
presidential election, or for some other purpose, the following anonymous 
letter was published in the Fayetteville (N. C.) Observer: 



894 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

" Nashville, 8tli March, 1 827. 
" I have just returned from Gen. Jackson's. I found a crowd of 
company with him ; seven Virginians were of the number. He gave me 
a most friendly reception, and urged me to stay some days longer with 
him. He told me this morning, before all his company, in reply to a 
question I put to him concerning the election of J. Q. Adams for the 
presidency, that Mr. Clay's friends made a proposition to his friends, 
that if they would promise, for him, not to put Mr. Adams into the seat 
of secretary of state. Clay and his friends would, in one hour, make him, 
Jackson, the president. He most indignantly rejected the proposition, 
and declared he would not compromit himself; and unless most openly 
and fairly made the president by congress, he would never receive it. 
He declared that he said to them, he would see the whole earth sink 
under him, before he would bargain or intrigue for it." 

To the statements contained in this letter, persons professing to speak 
by authority of Mr. Clay, gave a prompt and unequivocal denial, and 
expressed the belief, that the declarations ascribed to Gen. Jackson had 
never been made by him. It soon became known, that the author of 
this letter was Carter Beverley, of "Wheeling, Virginia. His veracity 
being impeached by the above denial, he wrote to Gen. Jackson, (May 
15,) requesting a written confirmation of the statements in his letter to 
his friend in North Carolina. The following is an extract from the 
general's reply : 

" Hermitage, June 5, 1827, 

'■'■ Dear Sir : — * * * Early in January, 1825, a member of 
congress of high respectability, visited me one morning, and observed, 
that he had a communication he was desirous to make to me ; that he 
wa.'i informed there was a great intrigue going on ; and that it was right 
I should be informed of it. * * * He said he had been inform^.d 
by the friends of Mr. Clay, that the friends of Mr. Adams had made 
overtures to them saying, if Mr. Clay and his friends would unite in aid 
of the election of Mr. Adams, Mr. Clay should be secretary of state. 
That the friends of Mr. Adams were urging, as a reason to induce the 
friends of Mr. Clay to accede to their proposition, that if I was elected 
president, Mr. Adams would be continued secretary of state, (inuendo, 
there would be no room for Kentucky.) That the friends of Mr. Clay 
stated, the west did not wish to separate from the west; and if I would 
say, or permit any of my confidential friends to say, that, in case I was 
elected president, Mr. Adams should not be continued secretary of state, 
by a complete union of Mr. Clay and his friends, they would put an end 
to the presidential contest in or t hour. And he was of opinion it was 



MORE OF THE " COALITION." 395 

right to fight such intriguers with their own weapons. To which, in 
substance, I replied, that in politics, as in every thing else, my guide 
was principle; and, contrary to the expressed and unbiased will of tliG 
people, or their constituted agents, I never would step into the presi- 
dential chair ; and requested him to say to Mr. Clay and his friends, 
(for I did suppose he had come from Mr. Clay, although he used the 
term of Mr. Clay's friends,) that before I would reach the presideutiul 
chair by such means of bargain and corruption, I would see the earth 
open, and swallow Mr. Clay and his friends, and myself with them. If 
they had not confidence in me to believe, if I was elected, that I would 
call to my aid in the cabinet men of the first virtue, talent and integrity, 
not to vote for me. The second day after this communication, and 
reply, it was announced in the newspapers, that Mr. Clay had come 
out openly and avowedly in favor of Mr. Adams. 

" It may be proper to observe, that, in the supposition that Mr. Clay 
was privy to the proposition stated, I may have done injustice to him; 
if so, the gentlemen informing me can esplain." 

To these statements, Mr. Clay, in a letter " to the public," dated June 
29, 1827, and in a speech at Lexington, July 12, gave another unquali- 
fied denial. In the letter he says : " Gen. Jackson having. at last vol- 
untarily placed himself in the attitude of my public accuser, we are nov7 
fairly at an issue. I rejoice that a specific accusation by a responsible 
accuser has at length appeared, though at the distance of near two and 
a half years since the charge was first put forth through Mr. George 
Kremer. * * * Such being the accusation and the prosecutor and 
the issue between us, I have now a right to expect that he will substan- 
tiate his charges, by the exhibition of satisfactory evidence. In that 
event, there is no punishment which would exceed the measure of mj 
ofiense. In the opposite event, what ought to be the judgment of the 
American public, is cheerfully submitted to their wisdom and justice." 

To this the general replied, July 18, in an address " to the public," 
in which he named James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, as the member 
of congress by whom the disclosure had been made, and in which, after 
repeating the conversation as related in his letter to Beverley, and men- 
tioning some other circumstances, he said : " What other conclusion or 
inference was to be made, than that he spoke by authority, either of Mr. 
Clay himself or some of his confidential friends ? The character of Mr. 
Buchanan, with me, forbids the idea that he was acting on his own re- 
sponsibility, or that, under any circumstances, he could have been in- 
duced to pro^jose an arrangement, unless possessed of satisfactory assur- 
ances that, if accepted, it would be carried fullj into effect. * * • 



396 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Still I have not said, nor do I now say, that the proposal made to mo 
was 'with the privity and consent ' of Mr. Clay, nor either have I said 
that his friends in congress had made propositions to me." 

This brought out Mr. Buchanan in a letter, August 8, to the editor 
of the Lancaster Journal. As the truth of the charges of Gen. Jack- 
son depends essentially for confirmation upon the testimony of Mr. 
Buchanan, all the more material parts of his letter are here given. Ho 
says : 

" In the month of December, 1824, a short time after the commence- 
ment of the session of congress, I heard, among other rumors then in 
circulation, that Gen. Jackson had determined, should he be elected 
president, to continue Mr. Adams in the ofi&ce of secretary of state. 
Although I felt certain he had never intimated such an intention, yet I 
was sensible that nothing could be better calculated both to cool the ardor 
of his friends, and inspire his enemies with confidence, than the belief 
that he had already selected his chief competitor for the highest office 
within his gift. I thought Gen. Jackson owed it to himself and to the 
cause in which his political friends were engaged, to contradict this re- 
port, and to declare that he would not appoint to that ofiice the man, 
however worthy he might be, who stood at the head of the most formid- 
able party of his political enemies." 

Alluding to a conversation he had with Mr. Markley, a representative 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Buchanan says : " Mr. Markley adverted to the 
rumor which I have mentioned, and said it was calculated to injure the 
general. He observed that Mr. Clay's friends were warmly attached to 
him, and that he thought they would endeavor to act in concert at the 
election. That if they did so, they could elect either Mr. Adams or 
Gen. Jackson, at their pleasure ; but that many of them would never 
figree to vote for the latter, if they knew that he had predetermined to 
prefer another to Mr. Clay for the first office in his gift. And that 
some of th^ friends of Mr. Adams had already been holding out the 
idea, that in case he were elected, Mr. Clay might probably be oifered 
the situation of secretary of state." 

Mr. Buchanan, having suggested that some one ought to call upon 
General Jackson, and get from him a contradiction of the report, says : 
" Mr. Markley urged me to do so, and observed, if Gen. Jackson had 
not determined whom he would appoint secretary of state, and should 
say that it would not be Mr. Adams, it might be of great advantage to 
our cause for us so to declare, upon his own authority : we should then 
be placed upon the same footing with the Adams men, and might fight 
them with their own weapons. That the western members would 
naturally prefer voting for a western man, if there were a probability 



MORE OF THE " COALITION." 397 

that the cLaims of Mr. Clay to the second office in the government should 
be fairly estimated ; and that if they thought proper to vote for Gen. 
Jackson, they could soon decide the contest in his favor." 

Mr. Buchanan, desiring to obtain from Gen. Jackson a contradiction 
of the report, called on him for that purpose ; informed him of the re- 
port in circulation, and told him that it might be injurious to his elec- 
tion ; and that, if he had not determined to appoint Mr. Adams, the re- 
port should be promptly contradicted under his own authority. Mr. B. 
in relating the conversation between himself and Gen. Jackson, says 
farther : " I mentioned, it had already probably done him some injury, 
and proceeded to relate to him the substance of the conversation which 
I had held with Mr. Markley. I do not remember whether I mentioned 
his name, or merely described him as a friend of Mr. Clay. 

" After I had finished, the general declared, he had not the least ob- 
jection to answer my question ; that he thought well of Mr. Adams, but 
had never said or intimated that he would, or that he would not, appoint 
him secretary of state ; that these were secrets he would keep to him 
self;" and " that if he should ever be elected president, it would be 
without solicitation and without intrigue on his part. I then asked him 
if I were at liberty to repeat his answer. He said I was perfectly at 
liberty to do so to any person I thought proper. * * * I do not recol- 
lect that Gen. Jackson told me I might repeat his answer to Mr. Clay 
and his friends ; though I should be sorry to say he did not. 

" I called on Gen. Jackson solely as his friend, upon my individual 
responsibility, and not as the agent of Mr. Clay or any other person. 
Until I saw Gen. Jackson's letter to Mr. Beverley of the 5th ult., and 
at the same time was informed by a letter from the editor of the United 
States' Telegraph, that I was the person to whom he alluded, the con- 
ception never once entered my mind that he believed me to have been 
the agent of Mr. Clay or of his friends, or that I had intended to pro- 
pose to him terms of any kind for them, or that he could have supposed 
me to be capable of expressing the opinion, that it was right to ' fight 
them with their own weapons.' He could not, I think, have received 
this impression, until after Mr. Clay and his friends had actually elected 
Mr. Adams president, and Mr. Adams had appointed Mr. Clay secretary 
of state. After those events had transpired, it may be readily conjec- 
tured in what manner my communication has led him into the mistake 
I deeply deplore that such has been its effect." 

A letter from Mr. Eaton, a senator from Tennessee, to the public, 
(September 18,) follows that of Mr. Buchanan. He differs with Mr. B. 
as to the date of the interview with Gen. Jackson, making it abcit the 
20th of January. He says: " In January, 1825, a few days b '^'ore it 



S98 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

had beeu known that Mr. Clay and his friends had declared in favor of 
Mr. Adams, I was called upon by Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania. He 
said it was pretty well understood, that overtures were making by the 
friends of Adams, on the subject of cabinet appointments : that Jackson 
should fight them with their own weapons. He said the opinion was, 
that Jackson would retain Adams, and that it was doing him injury. 
That the general should state whom he would make secretary of state, 
and desired that I would name it to him. My reply was, that I was 
satisfied that Gen. Jackson would say nothing on the subject. Mr. B. 
then remarked : ' Well, if he will merely say he will not retain Mr. 
Adams, that will answer.' I replied, I was satisfied, Gen. Jackson would 
neither say who should, or who should not, be secretary of state ; but 
that he, (Mr. B.,) knew him well, and might talk with him as well as I 
could, Mr. Buchanan then said, that on the next day, before the general 
went to the house, he would call. He did so, as I afterwards under- 
stood." 

Having in his letter spoken of Mr. Markley as " the negotiator" of the 
bargain, Mr. M., on the 30th of October, replied to Mr. Eaton. He 
said he was called on the latter end of December, 1824, by Mr. 
Buchanan, who expressed " great solicitude for the election of Gen. 
Jackson," and " adverted to the rumors which were afloat, that the 
friends of Mr. Adams were holding out the idea, that in case he should 
be elected, Mr. Clay would probably be offered the situation of secretary 
of state ; and that if Gen. Jackson was elected, he would appoint or con- 
tinue Mr. Adams. I told Mr. Buchanan I thought such a report was 
calculated to do the general a great deal of injury : and if it were not 
well founded, it ought to be contradicted ; and mentioned farther, that 
there was great plausibility in such reports, and that their receiving 
credit, particularly that which represented Gen. Jackson as haying de- 
termined, if he should be elected, that he would continue Mr. Adams as 
secretary of state ; as Mr. Adams had been one of his ablest defenders 
and advocates in his report sustaining Gen. Jackson against the charges 
which were preferred against him for his conduct in relation to the Sem- 
inole war. 

" Mr. Buchanan also asked if I had seen Mr. Clay, and whether I had 
had any conversation with him touching the presidential election. I 
replied that I had seen him in the house, but had had no conversation 
with him on that subject, but said I was anxious to get an opportunity to 
have a conversation with him, as I felt a great anxiety that he should vote 
with Pennsylvania. Mr. B. replied, that no one felt more anxious, for 
various reasons, than he did himself; that it was important, not only as 
it regarded the success of Gen. Jackson's election, that Mr. Clay should 



MORE OF THE "COALITION. S99 

go with Pennsylvania, but on account of his ulterior political prospects; 
declaring that he (Mr. B.) hoped one day to see Mr. Clay president of 
the United States; and that was another reason why he should like to 
see him secretary of state in case Gen. Jackson was elected ; and that if 
he was certain that Mr. Clay's views were favorable to Gen. Jackson's 
election, he would take an opportunity of talking to the general ou the 
subject, or to get Mr. Eaton to do so ; that he thought by doing so, he 
would confer a particular benefit on his country ; and that he could see 
nothing wrong in it." 

Mr. Markley says, that, at the request of Mr. Buchanan, he agreed to 
call on Mr. Clay ; but having no favorable opportunity of presenting this 
subject to him, he had not ascertained which candidate he would support. 
He says in his letter : '•' I have no recollection whatever of having urged 
Mr. B. to see Gen. Jackson, although I concurred in the propriety of 
his suggestion that he should call to see him ; nor have I the faintest 
recollection of any thing being said about fighting Mr. Adams' friends 
with their own weapons. If any such expressions were used I am very 
certain it was not by me. From the recollection I have of the conver- 
sation to which Mr. B. has reference, in his letter to the public of the 
8th of August last, my impressions are, that the object of his visit 
that evening, was to urge the propriety of my seeing Mr. Clay, 
and give him my views of the importance of identifying himself with 
Pennsylvania in support of Gen. Jackson. I entertained no doubt, that 
Mr. Buchanan was honestly determined, that no exertions on his part 
should be wanting, and that he felt confident he could speak with cer- 
tainty as to the great mass of Gen. Jackson's friends, that in case of his 
election, they would press upon him the appointment of Mr. Clay as 
secretary of state. 

" Mr. Buchanan concurred with me in opinion, that Pennsylvania 
would prefer Mr. Clay's appointment to that of any other person as sec- 
retary of state ; and from the obligations the general was under to Penn- 
sylvania, that he would go far to gratify her wishes ; and that therefore 
he believed the general, if elected, would appoint Mr. Clay." 

The controversy was continued by letters from several other gentlemsn, 
but without essentially changing the aspect of the afiair. 

In December, 1827, Mr. Clay again appeared before the public in 
" An address containing certain testimonials in refutation of the charges 
against him, made by Gen. Andrew Jackson, touching the last presiden- 
tial election." Mr. Clay presents the letters of twenty difierent mem- 
bers of congress, embracing all his friends from the western slates who 
voted for Mr. Adams; and all concur in denying any knowledge of any 
overture or proposition of the kind mentioned by Gen. Jackson. And 



400 THE AJUERICAN STATESMAN. 

a^ Mr. Clay s alleged concealment of his intejition to vote for Mr. Adams, 
until within a few dajs of the election in the house of representatives, 
had often been mentioned as a ground for suspicion of a bargain, he adds 
the letters of several individuals, among whom are John J. Crittenden, 
James Barbour, and Gen. La Fayettte, (then in this country,) showing 
that, to all of them, he had, at different times, extending back to an early 
day in October, declared either his preferences for Mr. Adams, as be- 
tween him and Gen. Jackson, or his intention to vote for the former. 
Soon after, a letter to the same effect from Thomas H. Benton was 
published. 

The only additional testimony we will add, are the declarations of Mr. 
Adams himself A few days after the close of his official term, iu an- 
swer to a letter from a committee appointed by a large meeting of citizens 
in the state of New Jersey, expressing their approval of his administra- 
tion, and their regret that he had not b^en continued in office, Mr. Adams 
made this solemn asseveration : " Before you, my fellow-citizens, in the pre- 
sence of our country, and of Heaven, I pronounce that charge totally 
unfounded." And again, on a subsequent occasion, a few years before 
his death, in an address to a large assembly of his fellow-citizens, he 
repeated, in substance, this solemn asseveration. 

The views of Gen. Jackson on the protection of domestic industry, 
expressed in his letter to Dr. Coleman, in 1824, and his support, in the 
senate of the United States, of the tariff act of that year, had placed him, 
in the public estimation, among the advocates of a high protective tariff 
The indications, however, of his receiving, at the approaching election, 
the almost unanimous support of the southern states, caused suspicion on 
the part of some of his northern friends, as to his policy on this subject 
in case of his election. 

In January, 1828, the senate of Indiana, after setting forth, in a pit 
amble, that Gen. Jackson's friends in the western states advocated hi.t 
election on the ground of his being friendly to internal improvements 
and to a tariff for the protection of American manufactures ; and that 
in the southern states his election was advocated on account of his oppo- 
sition to these measures ; in order to ascertain his real sentiments, that 
they might vote understaudiugly at the next presidential election, the 
senate passed the following resolution : 

'■'■Resolved, That his excellency the governor be requested to address 
a respectful letter to general Andrew Jackson, inviting him to state ex- 
plicitly, whether he favors that construction of the constitution which 
authorizes congress to appropriate money for making internal improve- 
ment in the several states ; and whether he is in favor of such a systeiT 
of protective duties for the benefit of American manufactures as will, in .11 



Jackson's letter on the tarifff, &c. 401 

cases where the raw material, and the ability to manufacture it, exist in our 
country, secure the patronage to our own manufactures, to the exclusion 
of those of foreign countries ; and whether, if elected president of the 
United States, he will, in his public capacity, recommend, foster, and 
support the American system." 

This resolution was accordingly communicated by Grov. Ray, who 
received from the general the following letter : 

'< Hermitage, February 28, 1828. 

" Sir : I have had the honor to receive your excellency's letter of 
the 30th ultimo, inclosing resolutions of the senate of Indiana, adopted, 
as it appears, with a view of ascertaining my opinions on certain politi- 
cal topics. The respect which I entertain for the executive and senate 
of your state, excludes from my mind the idea that an unfriendly dispo- 
sition dictated the interrogatories which are proposed. But I will con- 
fess my regret at being forced, by this sentiment, to depart, in the 
smallest degree, from the determination on which I have always acted. 
Not, sir, that I would wish to conceal my opinions from the people upon 
any political or national subjects; but as they were in various ways pro- 
mulgated in 1824,1 am apprehensive that my appearance before the 
public, at this time, may be attributed, as has already been the case, to 
improper motives. 

" With these remarks, I pray you, sir, respectfully to state to the 
senate of Indiana, that my opinions, at present, are precisely what they 
were in 1823 and '24, when they were communicated, by letter, to Dr. 
Coleman, of North Carolina, and when I voted for the present tariff and 
appropriations for internal improvement. As that letter was written at 
a time when the divisions of sentiment on this subject were as strongly 
marked as they now are, in relation both to the expediency and constitu- 
tionality of the system, it is inclosed herein ; and I beg the favor of 
your excellency to consider it a part of this communication. The occa- 
sion out of which it arose, was embraced with a hope of preventing any 
doubt, misconstruction, or any further inquiry respecting my opinion on 
the subjects to which you refer — particularly in those states which you 
have designated as cherishing a policy at variance with your own. To 
preserve our invaluable constitution, and to be prepared to repel the 
invasions of a foreign foe, by the practice of economy, and the cultiva- 
tion, tcithin ourselves, of the means of national defense and independence, 
should be, it seems to me, the leading objects of any system that aspires 
to the name of ' American,' and of every prudent administration of our 
government. 

" I trust, sir, that these general views, taken in connection with the 

26 



402 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

letter inclosed, and the votes referred to, will be received as a sufficient 
answer to tlie inquiries suggested by the resolutions of the senate. I 
will further observe to your excellency, that my views of constitutional 
power and American policy, were imbibed, in no small degree, in the 
times and from the sages of the revolution ; and that my experience has 
not disposed me to forget their lessons : and, in conclusion, I will repeat, 
that my opinions remain as they existed in 1823 and '4, uninfluenced by 
the hopes of personal aggrandizement ; and that I am sure they will never 
deprive me of the proud satisfaction of having always been a sincere 
and consistent republican. 

"I have tbe honor to be, very respectfully, your, most obedient 
servant, Andrew Jackson." 

The letter to Dr. Coleman was written when he was the first time a 
candidate for the presidency, and dated at Washington, April 26, 1824. 
It was published in the Raleigh (N. C.) Star. As this letter is often 
referred to in order to show the opinions of Gen. Jackson on the much 
controverted questions to which it relates, and as his political opinions 
were, and still are held in high estimation by a large portion of the 
American people, it is deemed proper to insert here copious extracts 
from the letter : 

" You ask my opinion on the tariff. I answer, that I am in favor of 
a judicious examination and revision of it, and so far as the tariff bill 
before us embraces the design of fostering, protecting, and preserving 
within ourselves the means of national defense and independence, par- 
ticularly in a state of war, I would advocate and support it. The expe- 
rience of the late war ought to teach us a lesson, and one never to be 
forgotten. If our liberty and republican form of government, procured 
for us by our revolutionary fathers, are worth the blood and treasure at 
which they were obtained, it surely is our duty to protect and defend 
them. * * * Heaven smiled upon, and gave us liberty and indepen- 
dence. That same Providence has blessed us with the means of national 
independence and national defense. If we omit or refuse to use the 
gifts which he has extended to us, we deserve not the continuation of his 
blessings. He has filled our mountains and our plains with minerals — 
with lead, iron, and copper ; and given us climate and soil for the grow- 
ing of hemp and wool. These being the grand materials of our national 
defense, they ought to have extended to them adequate and fair protec- 
tion, that our own manufactories and laborers may be placed on a fair 
competition with those of Europe, and that we may have, within our 
country, a supply of , those leading and important articles, so essential ir 



THE " WOOLENS BILI " 403 

war. * » • This tariff — I mean a judicious one — possesses more 
fanciful than real danger. I will ask, what is the real situation of the 
agriculturalist ? Where has the American farmer a market for his sur- 
plus products ? Except for cotton, he has neither a foreign or home 
market. Does not this clearly prove, when there is no market either at 
home or abroad, that there is too much labor employed in agriculture • 
and that the channels for labor should be multiplied ? Common sense, 
at once, points out the remedy. Draw from agriculture this superabun- 
dant labor ; employ it in mechanism and manufactures ; thereby creating 
a home market for your bread stuffs, and distributing labor to the most 
profitable account ; and benefits to the country will result. Take from 
agriculture in the United States, six hundred thousand men, women and 
children, and you will at once give a home market for more bread stuffs 
than all Europe now furnishes us. In short, sir, we have been too long 
subject to the policy of the British merchants. It is time that we 
should become a little more Americanized; and, instead of feeding the 
paupers and laborers of England, feed our own ; or else, in a short time, by 
continuing our present policy, we shall all be rendered paupers ourselves. 

" It is, therefore, my opinion, that a careful and judicious tariff is 
much wanted, to pay our national debt, and afford us the means of that 
defense within ourselves, on which the safety of our country and liberty 
depends; and last, though not least, give a proper distribution to our 
labor, which must prove beneficial to the happiness, independence and 
wealth of the community. 

" This is a short outline of my opinions, generally, on the subject of 
your inquiry; and believing them correct, and calculated to further the 
prosperity and happiness of my country, I declare to you, I would not 
barter them for any ofl&ce or situation of a temporal character, that 
could be given me." 

These sentiments were, in 1828, common to very large majorities in 
the eastern, middle, and western states; and but for the declarations 
of Gen. Jackson on the subject, he would probably have failed of an 
election. 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

THE "woolens bill." HARRISBURG CONVENTION. TARIFF OF 1828. 

At an early period^of the session of 1826-27, a bill was introduced 
proposing to increase the duty on wool and woolen manufactures 
Immediately after the passage of the act of 1 824, the English prosecu- 



404 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



ted tbeir buBiness with unusual activity, and flooded our country with 
their fabrics, which were sold to great profit. Anticipating sufficient 
protection from that act, and encouraged by the success of British manu- 
facturers, large investments were made by our citizens in manufactories. 
The quantity of British goods imported having vastly exceeded the 
demand, they had been disposed of by forced sales in this country, at a 
great sacrifice to the foreign manufacturer, and to the very serious 
embarrassment of the domestic manufacture. Against such a state of 
things, the latter had no protection ; and memorials on the subject, and 
petitions for relief, were addressed to congress. 

The inadequacy of the duties consisted in their nature, and in the 
manner in which they were determined. Being ad valorem duties, or 
duties laid according to the value of the article, the goods were invoiced 
at prices below their real value even in England. By this means, the 
revenue was defrauded, and protection to our manufacturers was defeated. 
It was the policy of the British manufacturers, after supplying other 
markets, to throw their remaining surplus into our markets, to be sold 
at such prices as could be obtained. And although these prices were 
sometimes below cost, the loss was more than compensated by the depres- 
sion of American manufactures, which was to the English manufacturer 
an object of great importance. 

By the tariff of 1824, the duty on imported woolen goods had been 
raised 8 per cent., and on wool, 15 per cent. No wool was exported 
hence to Europe; but more than one- third of the quantity manufac- 
tured here was imported from European countries, subject to a duty of 
30 per cent., while the manufacturer enjoyed a mere nominal protection 
of 33 1-3 per cent, ad valorem ; the duty being virtually determined by 
the party paying it. It was not to be expected that, in a large manu- 
facturing country like England, the products of labor would be measured 
by the exact extent of the demand. The surplus was sent to the United 
States. By the removal of this surplus from the home market, the 
English manufacturers had been enabled to maintain high prices on the 
residue, while the value of all similar goods had been reduced to the 
injury of the American manufacturer. 

The manufacturers, however, did not ask either for a reduction or an 
increase of the duty on wool. Nor did they ask for an increase of the 
ad valorem, duty on woolen goods, if regulations existed which should 
effectually prevent the evasion of the laws. This could be effected only 
by changing the mode of determining the ad valorem duty, or by adopt- 
ing a minimum duty, which it was impossible to evade. In many large 
establishments in New England, half the machinery was said to be idle; 
and some which had been comjleted was not to be put into operation 
until it could be done under more favorable auspices. 



THE " WOOLENS BILL." 405 

Od the 27th of January, 1827, Mr. Mallary, of Verrootit, chairman 
of the committee on manufactures, reported a bill " for the alteration of 
the acts imposing duties on imports," commonly called the " woolens 
bill." This bill proposed no change in the nominal rate of duty on 
woolen manufactures, which was 33 1-3 per cent, ad valorem; but it 
provided for estimating the duties on what was called the " minimum" 
principle. 

Goods manufactured in whole or in part of wool, and not exceeding 
in value 40 cents the square yard at the place whence imported, must be 
deemed to have cost 40 cents, and charged with the present rate of duty. 
If the value exceeded 40 cents, and did not exceed $2 50, they must 
be deemed to Lave cost $2 50, and charged accordingly ; and if they 
exceeded $2 50, they must be deemed to have cost $4, and charged 
accordingly. 

Unmanufactured wool, then subject to a duty of 30 per cent., was to 
be charged, after June, 1828, 35 per cent., and after June, 1829, 40 
per cent. And all wool exceeding in value 10 cents, and not exceeding 
40 cents per pound, was to be deemed to have cost 40 cents, and to be 
subject to these rates of duty. Wool less in value than 10 cents, was, 
by the act of 1824, 15 per cent., on which no alteration was proposed. 

The division of the house upon this measure was rather of a geogra- 
phical than of a party character. A large portion of the friends of 
Gen. Jackson in the northern states, were decided protectionists, among 
whom were M'Lane, of Delaware, and Buchanan and Ingham, of Penn- 
sylvania. These, gentlemen, however, as well as some of the friends of 
the administration, were opposed to certain provisions of the bill. As 
the principal cause of the complaint of the manufacturers was alleged to 
be the evasion of the duties contemplated by the act of 1824, so high a 
duty as some goods would necessarily be subject to, under the bill, was 
not called for. The scale of minimums was not sufficiently graduated : 
the " strides were too gigantic;" especially that from 40 cents to $2 50. 
A large proportion of goods ranging between these prices would be 
prohibited ; and they were of the grade usually consumed by the labor- 
ing classes. And this pi'ohibition would diminish the revenue. Goods, 
for example, of a grade costing 50 cents, would be subject, if imported, 
to the same duty as those entered at $2 50, viz. : 8S cts. Few goods 
worth less than $2 would be imported. 

At an early period of the discussion, therefore, an amendment was 
offered, proposing to moderate ' the scale of minimum valuation, by 
inserting a minimum of $1 50 between those of 40 cents and $2 50. 
The friends of the" bill as first reported, -contended that this amendment 
would in a great measure, defeat the object aimed at. A great part of 



406 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the goods imported came within the range of $2 ; and the amount 
excluded, if this minimum should be adopted, would not be an equiva- 
lent for the evasion of duty on those admitted. 

Mr. Mallary said the bill would not affect the revenue as was appre- 
hended. The importations would not be essentially diminished. For- 
eign manufacturers would only be compelled to change the quality of 
their cloths with reference to these minimums. Instead of sending 
goods of all grades of prices, they would send but the three grades of 
40 cents, $2 50, and $4, or nearly these prices. Some would come in 
at prices between $3 and $4, and even below $3, and be rated on the 
minimum of $4. Upon the lower grades the bill would operate more 
powerfully, as it was designed to do. And although some of these 
should be excluded, machinery was ready, and standing still, sufficient 
to supply all parts of the country in ninety days ; so that there was no 
ground for apprehending a monopoly. 

There was another mode of evading duties. Goods worth $4 the 
square yard were imported in an unfinished state, invoiced at less than 
$2 50, sent to one of the foreign finishing establishments, and, at a very 
small expense, transformed into cloths worth $4. The bill would leave 
but three points for the appraisers to regard, instead of the hundred, as 
under existing regulations, and insure the collection of the duties. 
Thus would the revenue be guarded against fraud, protection secured 
to the domestic manufacturer, and employment given to the sixty mil- 
lions of capital invested, and many thousands of industrious citizens. 

The amendment, however, introducing the additional minimum of 
$1 50, was adopted by a vote of 82 to 30. 

Among those who took an active part in the debate on this bill, were 
Messrs. Mallary, of Vermont, Dwight and Davis, of Massachusetts, 
Pearce, of Rhode Island, Bartlett, of New Hampshire, Stewart, of 
Pennsylvania, Barney, of Maryland, and Storrs, of New York, in favor 
of the bill ; and Messrs. M'Lane, of Delaware, Ingham and Buchanan, 
of Pennsylvania, Cambreleng, of New York, Hamilton and Mitchell, 
of South Carolina, Stevenson, of Virginia, Bryan, of North Carolina, 
and Wickliffc, of Kentucky, against it. 

The necessity of adopting some regulation to enforce the collection 
of duties, was generally admitted ; and, with a view to this object, 
several amendments were proposed by the opponents of the bill as sub- 
stitutes for th: minimum provision, but without success. 

Mr. M'Lane admitted that the woolen manufacture was suffering a 
severe depression, the cause of which, he said, was well known. The 
act of 1824 had induced large investments of capitai in this branch of 
manufacture ; and double the usual quantity of domestic woolens had 



THE " WOOLENS BILL. ' 407 

been thrown into the American market. At the same time, the opening 
of the trade of the South American states had led the British manufac- 
turers largely to increase their capital to supply that market. Having 
overestimated the demand, and having been met there by a successful 
competition on the part of our manufacturers, they soon found themselves 
in possession of a large surplus, which they sent to this country to be 
sold at almost any price it would bring. The flourishing state of the 
woolen manufacture, soon after the passage of the act of 1824, proved 
the sufficiency of that act as a measure of protection, if its intentions 
were fulfilled. And he was willing to go to the full extent of it, by 
substituting a specific for an ad valorem duty. 

The principle of protection also was to some extent discussed. Mr. 
Stewart, of Pennsylvania, supported the bill from its supposed benefits 
to agriculture ; and he regretted to find himself in opposition to two 
of his most distinguished colleagues, (Buchanan and Ingham,) with 
whom he had cooperated in support of the tarifi" of 1824; which, in his 
judgment, was not more important to the agricultural interest of Penn- 
sylvania than the bill under consideration. This bill would create a 
home market for our farmers, which no changes in Europe could aflBect, 
and prevent the importation of foreign agricultural produce to the neglect 
of our own. "For," said Mr. S., "what is the importation of cloth 
but the importation of agricultural produce ? Is not cloth the product 
of agriculture ? Analyse it ; resolve it into its constituent elements, 
and what is it ? Wool and labor. What produces the wool ? Grass 
and grain. And what support? labor, but bread and meat ? Cloth is 
composed of the grass and grain that feed the sheep, and the bread and 
meat that support the laborer who converts the wool into cloth. And 
is it policy for this country, where seven-eighths of the population are 
agriculturists, to import annually ten millions of dollars' worth of grass 
and grain, and bread and meat, converted into cloth ? 

" That the importation of cloth is the importation of agricultural 
,j produce, may ^^ regarded as a novel doctrine ; and to assert that thou- 
sands of tons of grass and corn are annually transported from Ohio and 
Kentucky to the Atlantic markets, would be considered no less strange ; 
but it was not less true. It is transported, not in its original shape, 
but like the cloth, in a changed and modified condition. It is animated 
— converted into live stock, cattle and horses. Each of these animals 
carries five or six tons of hay, and fifty or one hundred bushels of corn 
for consumption to the markets of the east, which it is the policy of 
this bill to sustain and to increase. Hence, it is a bill for the benefit of 
agriculture. There is no foundation for the objection that it will tax the 
farmer and ruin agriculture. This argument has been urged a thousand 



408 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

times against this policy. It was urged against the minimum of twenty- 
five cents per yard, imposed by the tariff of 1816, upon cotton. What 
has been the effect of that minimum duty upon cotton ? It afforded 
effectual protection in that case as it would in this. It has established 
the manufacture in this country ; and has it taxed the farmer ? No ; 
it has furnished the country a better fabric for one-half the sum it cost 
before. Nor is this all : it has supplied a home market to the southern 
planter for 1 80,000 bales of cotton, worth $7,000,000. And this market 
is not only permanent but increasing ; thus verifying every anticipation 
of its friends, and affording a most triumphant refutation of every ob- 
jection urged by its enemies. It has furnished facts and experience in 
opposition to speculation and theory. And similar effects will result 
from a similar policy in regard to wool." 

In speaking of the advantage of protection to manufactures in creat- 
ing a home market, Mr. Stewart said, that already the New England 
states had imported, in a single year, 629,000 barrels of flour from the 
agricultural states for consumption in their manufacturing establish- 
ments, while all Europe had taken less than 57,000 barrels. The ten- 
dency of this policy was also, not to create, but to prevent monopolies, 
and benefit the farmer. It would increase the number of woolen estab- 
lishments and the quantity of manufactured articles ; and this increased 
competition would reduce the price of the manufactured fabrics, while 
the increased demand for the raw material and breadstuffs would as 
certainly enhance the value of these articles of agricultural produce. 

In illustrating this argument, Mr. S. referred to the woolen establish- 
ment at Steubenville, which consumed annually 50,000 dollars worth of 
the agricultural produce of the surrounding country. Now if, by reject- 
ing this bill, that establishment should be destroyed, what would be the 
effect on the farmers ? It would not only destroy this market, but in- 
crease the quantity of agricultural produce, by converting customers 
into rivals — consumers into producers of agricultural products. But 
suppose that, by passing the bill, two or three other establishments 
should be put into operation in that place, which he stated from personal 
knowledge would be done ; would this impose a tax on the farmer for 
the benefit of the manufacturer ? Would th.s create monopolies ? Pre- 
cisely the reverse. 

lie also controverted the idea that the encouragement of manufactures 
was injurious to commerce. He held it to be a sound political axiom, 
that the prosperity of commerce would always be in proportion to the 
prosperity of agriculture and manufactures. Commerce was properly 
■called the handmaid of agriculture and manufactures. Her legitimate 
office was to carry ind exchange the surplus productions of one country for 



THE " WOOLENS BILL. 409 

the money or surplus productions of another. Destroy agriculture and 
manufactures and commerce would be destroyed. 

Nor would this measure diminish the revenue. If less cloth should 
be imported, the importation of other articles would be increased. The 
best plan to increase the revenue, was to increase the prosperity of the 
country — to increase its ability to purchase and consume foreign pro- 
ductions. He illustrated this by again referring to the establishment at 
Steubenville, where there were annually consumed imported goods to 
the value of $30,000, on which were paid duties to the amount of 
$10,000. 

Mr. Buchanan said he had ever been the friend of what had been 
called the tariff policy ; and that the new doctrines of political economy 
preached in England had no charms for him. They had never been 
practiced by British statesmen ; and there was much reason to believe 
they had been manufactured, not for home consumption, but for foreign 
markets. [The doctrines alluded to by Mr. B. were those of free trade, 
by the profession of which Great Britain might influence other nations 
to adopt the policy, while she in practice rejected it.] 

But while he made this avowal of his opinion, he was not ready to go 
to any length manufacturers might desire, in prohibiting the importa- 
tion of foreign goods. Other interests had equal claims to protection. 
He admitted the depressed condition of the woolen manufacture, and the 
necessity of extending to it additional protection. One principal cause 
of this depression was, that, since the passage of our tariff of 1824, the 
British government had reduced the duty on the importation of foreign 
wool, from six pence sterling to a penny sterling per pound. By this 
decrease of duty on the raw material, the cost of the manufactured ar- 
ticle had been diminished, and enabled the English manufacturer to 
compete with the American manufacturer in our market, with greater 
advantage than formerly. This cause was permanent in its nature, and 
would continue, until removed by legislation. The other caus» — that 
of throwing upon us the surplus of British goods designed for the South 
American market — was an evil which would soon cure itself. Such 
fluctuations in trade could not be controlled by legislative provision. 
What he was now willing to do, was to give the protection fully and 
fairly intended by the tariff of 1824. The government was pledged to 
continue this protection. But our manufacturers had in a measure lost 
it, in consequence of the act of parliament which enabled their foreign 
competitors to manufacture cheaper than they could do in 1824. He 
was willing, therefore, to increase the rates of duty sufficiently to coun- 
tervail the reduction of the British duty on foreign wool ; but he would 
go no farther. 



410 THE AMERICAN STATKSMAN. 

Mr. Archer, of Virginia, said the strong ground for supporting this 
bill had been stated by a gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Davis,) 
who spoke some days ago. It was, that the recent i eduction of the 
British duty on the import of wool, had ir effect taken away a part of 
the protection which the existing rates o^. duty wer^iutended to afford; 
and it was estimated that sixteen per '•^nt. increase was necessary to com- 
pensate for the disadvantage thi'.:, occasioned to the American manufac- 
turer. This argument amounted, in principle, to this, that the discharge 
of a foreign tax, was a sufficient reason for our adopting it. We were 
asked to put on our importation and consumption a new charge equal to 
the reduction of the British duty on imported wool, for the farther pro- 
tection of the manufacturers. 

Of the distress of the manufacturing interest he had no doubt. It 
had recently received the aid of a tariff; and the administering of this 
stimulus was always attended with distress. An excess of employment 
had been attracted to the favored pursuits ; and the market had become 
overstocked with their products. Whatever might be the enlargement 
of a market given by a tariff, it would be glutted, and distress would fol- 
low. The present distress of the manufacturers, caused or aggravated by 
the tariff of 1824, was therefore a reason, not for, but against this form 
of relief, which would in the end produce a wider and more aggravated 
suffering. 

The only argument by which protection to any particular interest, at 
the public expense, could be vindicated in justice, did not apply in the 
present case. It was, that the protection would redeem itself — that the 
article would eventually be rendered cheaper by the tax. No one would 
defend a tax merely to favor a particular interest, if there were no ex- 
pectation that the public would be indemnified. Such it had been said, 
was the result of protection in the case of coarse cottons. But was it 
so? It was true that they were lower than they were when the duty was 
imposed ; but were they lower than they would have been if they had 
been left without protection ? If they were as cheap as we could be 
supplied with the foreign article, why not repeal the tax ? To this the 
manufacturers would not consent. For this reason, he did not believe 
that we did or could successfully compete with others in foreign markets. 

But even if it were true in relation to coarse cottons, it would not be 
so in regard to woolens. In the manufacture of these, a smaller pro- 
portion of the labor was performed by machinery ; and tlie manual labor 
required was of a more experienced and expensive kind. And for an- 
other reason : the cost of the raw material entered more largely into the 
prices of woolens, than into those of cottons. And wool raised at home 
must always be much higher than that which could be obtained from 
abroad. Our country was not so favorably for raising sheep as Eng- 



THE "woolens bill." 411 

land and other countries. This disadvantage of the greater cost of the 
i-aw material could never be avoided, and, taken in connection with the 
largei proportion of labor required in woolen as compared with cotton 
goods., was decisive as to the relative cost of the domestic and the foreign 
fabric. "With us, woolens must be a forced fabric, and could never be 
made as cheap as they could be imported. 

A farther argument in favor of the bill was the enlarged market which 
the extension of the manufacture was expected to produce. This also 
Mr. A. denied. There would be no enlargement of the market — no ad- 
dition to the amount or value of sales — no augmentation of the quanti- 
ty, or enhancement of the prices of the products of other branches of 
industry. Market could be obtained only in the proportion in which it 
was given. By purchasing at the north what had been heretofore ob- 
tained abroad, was surrendering, to just that amount, our present market 
abroad. It would be merely a transfer of market; for what would be 
added to the domestic, would be deducted from the foreign market. 
Markets in the immediate neighborhood of manufactories would be im- 
proved by their extension : and this had been confounded with a general 
improvement of the market. The market of the country would, in fact, 
suffer ; for the whole value of the national exchanges would be reduced 
in an amount equal to the tax imposed by the bill. 

It had been said, that the revenue would not be diminished. If our 
money was taken, our understandings ought not to be insulted. On such 
an argument, he declined comment. And when the revenue had suffered 
reduction, the resource would be imposts on other imports. 

Much had been heard of the extension of protection to other interests 
than the manufacturing. How could navigation and commerce be said 
to be protected when we were holding out a permanent invitation to the 
removal of all discriminating duties ? By the removal of duties on 
foreign shipping, our navigation had not been impaired. Scarcely more 
necessary were duties for the protection of agriculture. Of this, the 
proof was found in the readiness of our agriculturists to concur in the 
removal of the protective duties. They not only did not ask, they re- 
nounced protection, and were willing to annul every duty which wore 
the semblance of this character. The benefits of the proposed measure 
would be confined to a small number of persons — capitalists, who had 
experienced a diminished rate of profits from their business. 

But we are not allowed to extend the remarks of speakers on this bill. 
So far as they embraced the general subject of protection, they do not 
essentially differ from those which will be found in the debates on the 
tariff bills of 1824 and 1828, in other parts of this work. 

On the lOth of February, the bill passed the house, 106 to 95, and 
was sent to the senate, where, for the want of time to act upon it at 



412 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

that session, it was laid upon the table, February 28, by the casting 
vote of the vice-president. 

Disappointed in their expectations by the defeat of the " woolens bill," 
the manufacturers early resolved on a renewal of their application to 
congress for relief. At a meeting of the " Pennsylvania society for the 
promotion of manufactures and the mechanic arts," held on the 14th of 
May, 1827, Charles J. Ingersoll presiding, in view of "the depressed 
state of the woolen manufacture, and of the market for wool, together 
with its injurious effect on other departments of industry, and on the 
general welfare," resolutions were adopted calling on the farmers and 
manufacturers, and the friends of both branches of industry, to hold con- 
ventions in their respective states, and to appoint at least five delegates 
from each state, to meet in general convention at Harrisburg, on the 
30th day of July, to deliberate on measures proper to be talien in the 
present posture of their affairs, and appointing a committee of twenty- 
seven, to frame an address to the citizens of the United States. 

In their address, the committee discussed the policy of protection, and 
set forth the causes of the depression of the manufacturing interest, and 
the effect of this depression upon the other great interests of the country. 
Above 80 per cent, of the population was engaged in the pursuits of 
agriculture ; and for the large surplus of the produce of the soil, there 
was no market at home or abroad. The want of a market operated 
severely upon the middle and western states. Europe no longer wanted 
their grain and flour, and her ports were closed against them, while 
these states consumed of the manufactures of Europe to the amount of 
$10,000,000 or $12,000,000 in value annually. 

To show the effects of the closing of the European ports against our 
bread-stuffs, the amount of our exports of bread-stuffs during the year 
1825, were compared with the amount exported while our wheat and 
flour had a foreign demand. It appeared that, while our population had 
nearly trebled since 1796, the exports of all the articles produced, ex- 
clusive of cotton and tobacco, had diminished nearly one-third. The 
arguments presented by the committee in favor of the desired protection 
and of the general policy, were substantially the same as those offered 
in previous discussions of the same subject. 

In pursuance of the call of the " Pennsylvania society for the pro- 
motion of manufactures," &c., state conventions were held, and delegates 
appointed to the national convention at Harrisburg. From the pro- 
ceedings of these state conventions, and the names of the persons who 
participated in them, there seems to have been greater unanimity at 
that time among the people of the northern states on the subject of the 
tariff than at a later period. 



HARRISBURG CONVENTION. 413 

The New York state convention was held at Albany. Jesse Buel, 
of Albany, was president of the convention ; and Edmund H. Pendleton, 
of Dutchess, and David E. Evans, of Genesee, were secretaries. From 
the published proceedings it appears, that " the convention was address- 
ed by Col. Young, of Saratoga, Gen. Van Rensselear, of Columbia, and 
other gentlemen, in support of the purposes for which it had assembled." 
Among the delegates appointed to the Harrisburg convention, were 
some of the most prominent citizens of the state, viz : Eleazer Lord 
Peter Sharp, Gen. James Tallmadge, Jacob R. Van Rensselaer, Samuel 
M. Hopkins, Samuel Young, John B. Yates, Alvan Stewart, Victory 
Birdscye, Enos T. Throop, Francis Granger, Philip Church, and several 
others, together with the officers of the convention. 

A long series of resolutions was adopted, of which we copy the fol- 
lowing as expressive of the common sentiments of the people, at that 
period, of the different political parties in the northern portion of the 
union : 

Resolved, That agriculture, manufactures and commerce, are social 
pursuits, and flourish best in the society of each other ; and that equal 
protection by the government ia due to each. 

" Resolved, That as wool and the woolen trade were tht, principal 
foundation of the prosperity, first of the Netherlands, and afterwards ot 
England ; so the people of the northern and middle states ought to look 
to the same article as an unfailing source of wealth to their agricultural, 
manufacturing, and commercial interests. 

" Resolved, That, inasmuuch as the staple agricultural products of 
the south, to wit, cotton, tobacco, and rice, are admitted into the ports 
of Europe without competition in their production in that part of the 
world ; and while both competition and prohibitory laws operate to ex- 
clude from European markets the breadstuffs, provisions, and manufac- 
tures of the northern, middle and western states, we deem it unkind in 
our southern brethren to oppose the passage of laws which are calculated 
to create a home market for our agricultural productions, and to promote 
our national wealth and prosperity." 

There were in the national convention at Harrisburg, 95 delegates 
from the following states : New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. Joseph Ritner, of 
Pennsylvania, was chosen president ; Jesse Buel, of New York, and 
Frisby Tilghman, ot Maryland, vice-presidents ; and William Hal- 
STED, Jun, of New Jersey, and Redwood Fisher, of Pennsylvania, 
secretaries. 

Committees upon the several most important branches of manufacture 



414 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

were appointed, and a committee to draft a memorial to congress : also 
a committee to prepare an address to the people of the United States. 
The reports of the different committees form a large volume, embracing 
a great amount and variety of facts and statistics which were not only 
in themselves interesting, but useful to the political economist and the 
statesman. The memorial and petition to congress contained the project 
of a tariff of duties upon raw wool and the different kinds and quaatiea 
of woolen manufactures, for the consideration of congress. An increase 
of duty on other articles of manufacture was also recommended. 

The subject of a general revision of the tariff was again brought 
before congress, on the 31st of December, 1827; and a resolution was 
adopted authorizing the committee on manufactures to send for ^ < rsons 
and papers. The object of granting this power was to enable the com- 
mittee to ascertain and report such facts as might be useful in guiding 
the judgment of the house. On the 31st of January, 1828, the com- 
mittee made a report, accompanied by a bill " in alteration of the several 
acts imposing duties on imports ;" and the debate on the same commenced 
the 3d of March, and terminated on the 22d of April. 

The committee stated in their report, that, from the evidence relating 
to the woolen manufacture, the following facts appeared : (1.) This in- 
terest was laboring under severe depressions. (2.) These depressions 
were caused, in a great degree, by excessive and irregular importations, 
and the consequent fluctuation in price. (3.) The prices of wool in 
England were nearly fifty per cent, less than in this country. (4.) The 
cost of our wool in most cloths was about one-half of the cost of the 
fabric. (5.) At the same cost of wool and foreign dying materials, the 
manufactured article could be afforded as cheap in this country as in Eng- 
land. (6.) The present duty was insufficient ; and to render any reason- 
able duty effectual, it must be specific instead of ad valorem. 

The committee reported the scale of minimums adopted by the house 
in the " woolens bill" at the preceding session, except that the minimum 
$1 50 was reduced to ^1 ; and a specific duty was proposed as follows : 
On cloths falling under the minimum of 50 cents, a duty of 16 cents the 
square yard ; under that of $ 1 , a duty of 40 cents ; under that of $2 50, 
a duty of $ 1 ; and under that of $4, a duty of 40 per cent, ad valorem. 
And a provision was added, charging cloths exceeding $4 in value, an 
ad valorem duty of 45 per cent. The committee also reported a modifi- 
cation of the tariff generally. 

The debate embraced the usual variety of topics. Most of the former 
arguments on the constitutionality and the general effects of the protec- 
tive system, were reproduced ; and the most opposite opinions were ex- 
pressed as to th*^ operation of the proposed measure. 



TAEIFF OF 1828. 415 

Mr. Mallary, chairman of the committee, dissented from the majority 
on some of the provisions of the bill, especially those relating to wool 
and woolens, and moved an amendment adopting substantially the pro- 
visions of the woolens bill of the last session. He expressed his views 
upon the general subject of protection, and upon the merits of the bill. 
The duty on wool, as proposed by the committee's bill, he deemed highly 
objectionable. By the act of 1824, the coarse wool from South America, 
costing 1 cents a pound at the place whence it was imported, was sub- 
ject tb a duty of 15 per cent. As this grade of wool was not grown in 
this country, a higher rate of duty would have raised the price of the 
cloth, without essentially benefiting the wool grower. On all other wool, 
the duty was 20 per cent., to be increased 5 per cent, every year, until it 
should have reached 50 per cent. By the present bill, all kinds of wool 
were to be charged 7 cents a pound, and in addition, an ad valorem duty 
of 40 per cent., to be increased to 50 per cent. Since the passage of the 
act of 1824, manufactories had been built expressly for working this 
kind of raw material into negro cloths, inferior baizes and flannel, used by 
the poorer classes ; and the foreign fabric had been almost entirely ex- 
cluded. The effect of the proposed duty would be to drive the manufac- 
ture out of the country. 

Another objection to the bill was, that the duties on the raw material 
were too high in comparison with those on the manufactured article. If 
the country did not furnish an adequate supply, the deficiency must be 
made up by importation ; and if the wool unmanufactured were met by too 
high a duty, it would come in the manufactured state. It was feared 
that the efi"ect of the bill would be the separation of the wool grower 
from the manufacturei*. Their interests were united. The prosperity 
of the one was dependent upon that of the other. The manufacturer, 
relying upon a foreign market for wool, might prosper under a high duty 
on cloth; but the wool grower was dependent for success upon the manu- 
facturer. Hence, a system of duties which should operate so adversely 
upon the latter as to prevent or destroy the domestic market for wool, 
would be equally detrimental to the former, whatever might be the duty 
on foreign wool. 

Calculations were made to show that the bill was less favorable to 
both the manufacturer and the wool grower, than the tariff of 1824. The 
manufacturer of the coarse fabric, being dependent on the foreign article 
for supplies of the raw material, would be ruined ; as the American 
farmer can not afford to grow the coarse wool, worth only eight to twelve 
cents a pound, instead of that of a quality which would command thirty- 
five to fifty cents. The foreigner would take the wool which we pro- 
hibited, and furnish the fabric, the manufacture of which the American 



416 THK aMEKICAX statesman. 

must abandon. And by throwing the manufacture out of the country, 
the effects of domestic competition would be lost ; and the duty would 
in reality be a tax on the consumer. 

On the other hand, it was calculated with equal confidence, that the 
bill would operate equally and favorably upon all classes whose interesta 
were involved in it. The necessity of increasing the duty on coarse 
wool arose from the fact of its coming in very dirty, losing nearly half 
its weight in cleaning. But when cleaned, its quality approached so 
nearly the cheapest grades of domestic wool as to affect them in the market 
The specific duty of 7 cents would compel the merchant or manufacturer 
to import only the cleanest wool. The duty proposed, without greatly 
advancing the price, would, by checking the importation, create a demand 
on the American farmer for coarse wool. It was attempted to be shown 
by arithmetical calculation, that the woolen manufacturer would derive 
additional protection from the proposed arrangement. 

The late repeal, by Great Britain, of the duty on wool, had been 
alleged, by our manufacturers, to be one of the means which ena- 
bled the British to undersell them, and been offered as a reason for 
additional protection. The facts were said to be these : Great Britain 
had for two hundred years prohibited, under severe penalties, the export- 
ation of sheep or wool, and allowed the importation at a duty of one cent 
a pound. The imports of wool from Spain and Germany having become 
so great in 1819, the wool growers demanded protection, or the privilege 
of exporting, if the manufacturer were permitted to import : and a duty 
of 6d (11 cents) a pound was laid upon wool imported. In 1824, this 
duty was repealed ; and by. the same law, the restriction upon the export- 
ation was removed. How, it was asked, could this work injury to the 
manufacturer ? 

With respect to the duty on molasses also, the friends of protection 
were divided in opinion. The existing duty was 5 cents ; that proposed 
by the bill 10 cents a gallon. The reasons for the increase were; 
(1.) The present duty was disproportionate to that on sugar; a gallon 
of molasses being equal, as a sweetening matter, to eight pounds of sugar, 
on which was paid a duty of 24 cents. (2.) Much of the article being 
■QSed for distillation, it came into competition with the grain of the farmer, 
for whose protection the increase was necessary. 

The increase was opposed, because, (1.) It was an article of general use 
among all classes of people, and of which this country could not furnish a 
supply. (2.) It would injure our trade with the West Indies. This was 
the only fair and reciprocal trade of great importance enjoyed by our 
citizens. The South Carolina doctrine was, " If a nation will not buy, 
it can not sell." It was equally true, that, if a nation can not sell, it 



TARIFF OF 182S. 417 

can not buy. Our annual exports thither amounted to $10,000,000 to 
$18,000,000, consisting chiefly of the productions of the forest and fish- 
eries. The state of Maine was extensively engaged in this trade. The 
timber in the forest was of little value. Nearly the whole of its event- 
ual value was produced by its manufacture and transportation to its proper 
and only market. The lumber business gave employment to $4,000,000 
of capital, 14,000 men, and 10,000 yoke of oxen. Of equal or greater 
importance was the fishing interest. These being products of great bulk 
and burden, they required a large amount of shipping for their trans- 
portation. Molasses was the principal article to be had in exchange for 
lumber and fish : cash could not be procured for them. 

Another effect of this high duty on molasses reported by the majority 
of the committee, it was feared, would be to exclude the poorer qualities, 
which were fit only for distillation, and, consequently, to advance the 
price in the West India market for the better qualities. Both were sold 
together ; and the better article could not be bought alone without pay- 
ing a price which would compensate the seller for his loss on the poorer 

Spirits not being considered one of the necessaries of life, the duty on 
foreign distilled spirits received no material opposition. So also in rela- 
tion to the proposed duties on iron and the manufactures of iron, the 
friends of protection were nearly unanimous. The specific duty of 7 
cents per pound on coarse wool having been reduced to 4 cents, and a 
few other provisions having been slightly altered, the bill was ordered 
to a third reading on the 15th of April. 

The next day the bill was read the third time, and on the question of 
its passage, Mr. Randolph spoke at length in opposition, and concluded 
by moving its indefinite postponement. Upon this motion anothei 
debate arose, in which the merits of the bill and the general system of 
protection were again discussed. In this discussion, however, few took 
a part, except the opponents of the protective policy. 

Among the advocates of the bill were Anderson, Buchanan, Forward, 
and Ingham, of Pennsylvania ; Bates, of Massachusetts ; Barnard, 
Martin Hoffman, Martindale, Strong and Wright, of New York ; Mal- 
lary, of Vermont ; Bates, of Massachusetts ; Ingersoll, of Connecticut ; 
Vinton and Wright, of Ohio. Of those who spoke in opposition, were 
Alexander, Gilmer, and Randolph, of Virginia ; Anderson and Sprague, 
of Maine ; Cambreleng, of New York ; Drayton, Hamilton, and M'Duf- 
fie, of South Carolina ; Turner, of North Carolina ; Thompson, of New 
Jersey ; Wickliffe, of Kentucky ; and Wilde, of Georgia. 

The vote on the passage of the bill was taken on the 22d of April, and 
decided in the affirmative, 105 to 94. 

The spirit of some of the opposing members was strikingly exhibited 

27 



418 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

on taking the question on the title of the bill, which was, " An act in 
alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports." 

Mr. Wilde moved to amend it by adding the words, " and for the 
encouragement of domestic manufactures." 

Mr. Kaudolph opposed the motion, irsisting that domestic manufac- 
tures were those which were carried on in the families of farmers, in the 
fabrication of what used to be called Virginia cloth ; and that the bill, 
if it had its true name, should be called, a bill to rob and plunder nearly 
one-half of the union, for the benefit of the residue, &c. Let the friends 
of the bill christen their own child ; he would not stand godfather to it. 
The title was merely ad captandum vulgus ; like the words on the con- 
tinental money, ridiculed in Smith's verses : 

" Libertas ct natale solum, 
Fine words indeed ! I wonder where you stole 'em." 

The bill referred to manufactures of no sort or kind, but the manufacture 
of a president of the United States. 

Mr. Wilde, after a brief reply, in which he assented to Mr. E.'s 
opinion of the bill, but thought the manufactures in the family ought to 
be called household manufactures, consented to withdraw his amendment. 

Mr. Drayton then moved to amend the title as follows : strike out all 
after " An act," and insert, " to increase the duties upon certain imports, 
for the purpose of increasing the profits of certain manufacturers." After 
some general remarks on the injurious character of the bill, he stated 
that the main reason for his desiring to amend the title, was, that a deci- 
sion might be had on its constitutionality, by an appeal to the supreme 
court of the United States, on some case which might arise under its 
operation. This could not be done if the title remained as it now stood. 
A declaration by the power which enacted the law, that it was intended 
for the protection of certain manufacturers, would bring up the constitu- 
tional question, whether congress could increase the duties on imports 
for such a purpose, 

Mr. Hodges, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the amendment of 
Mr. Drayton, by adding to it as follows : " And to transfer the capital 
of the New England states to other states in the union." 

Whereupon Mr. Bartlett moved the previous question on the title. 
The house sustained the call ; the previous question was put and carried ; 
and the main question having been put, as follows : " Shall this be the 
title of the bill ?" it was carried without a division. 

In the senate, the specific duties on cloths, as fixed by the house, were 
changed to ad valorem duties of 40 per cent., to be increased after June, 
1829, to 45 per cent. With these and a few other amendments, the bill 



TARIFF OF 182S. 419 

was passed : and the amendments were afterward concurred in by the 
house. 

Great excitement at the south, especially in South Carolina, was pro- 
duced by the action of congress in 1827 and 1828, on the subject of pro- 
tection. The popular indignation found vent through public meetings, 
legislatures, and the press, in terms of extreme violence. A faithful his- 
tory of the times seems to require a record of some expressions of south- 
ern feeling and sentiment. With many it has been a question, whether 
the stand taken by the south on this subject was designed to frighten 
the people of the north from the position they had assumed, or whether it 
was induced by the belief that the protective policy really inflicted upon 
them the injury of which they so grievously complained. 

A memorial to the state legislature was adopted by the citizens of 
Columbia and Richland, S. C, entreating that body to " save them, if 
possible, from the conjoined grasp of usurpation and poverty." They 
say : " We exist as a member of the union merely as an object of taxa- 
tion. The northern and middle states are to be enriched by the plunder 
of the south." " The citizens of South Carolina'will be condemned to 
work as the tributaries of the northern and middle sections of the union. 
It is so now : and it is triumphantly determined to extend the system 
indefinitely." 

In their memorial to congress, they declare " that congre&s possess no 
jyoiver under the constitution to enact a system of protection" — " their 
honest earnings are legislated out of their pockets" — and the burdens 
imposed on them are " too heavy to be borne in silence any longer." 

In an address to the people of South Carolina, the citizens of Colleton 
district say : " Your remonstrances and your implorations have been in 
vain ; and a tariff bill has passed, not, indeed, such as you apprehended, 
but tenfold worse." " The question whether congress can constitution- 
ally do this or not, excites neither solicitude nor alarm, and appears un- 
worthy of inquiry. Power seems to be right ; and our representatives 
sit in desponding silence, under the conviction, that their voices could aa 
easily move the capitol from its basis, as shake the purpose of interested 
cupidity. They protest, indeed, before they receive the blow. 

" What course is left for us to pursue ? Our northern and western 
brethren are not, can not, be ignorant of the operation of the system they 
advocate, or of the powers they claim for the government. They full 
well know, because like us they must feel, that it lifts them to prosper- 
ity, while it sinks us into ruin. We have done by words all that words 
can do. To talk more must be a dastard's refuge. 

" If we have the common pride of men, or the determination of free- 
men, we must resist the impositions of this tariff. • * * In advising 



420 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

an attitude of open resistance to the laws of the union, we deem it due 
to the occasion, and that we may not be misunderstood, distinctly, but 
briefly to state, without argument, our constitutional faith. For it 
is not enough that imposts laid for the protection of manufactures are 
oppressive, and transfer millions of our property to northern capitalists* 
If we have given them our bond, let them take our blood. Those who 
resist these imposts must deem them %inconstitutional ; and the principle 
is abandoned by the payment of one cent, as much as ten millions." 

Retaliatory measures were proposed. It was suggested by a citizen 
of South Carolina, in one of the papers, that the legislatures of the- 
southern states prohibit the introduction of horses, mules, hogs, beef, 
cattle, bacon, and bagging, from Ohio, Kentucky, Teunesf.ee, and Indi- 
ana; whiskey, beer, flour, cheese, &c., from New York and Pennsylva- 
nia; and also lay on these last named states " a municipal tax, amount- 
ing to prohibition, on all stock in trade, consisting of goods, wares, or 
merchandise, the produce of those states." 

Another paper said : " The object of every agriculturist should be, in 
the first place, to devise means for the destruction of the manufacturing 
mania." 

A Georgia paper called the tariff" an " accursed chain to bind us vic- 
tims to the idol mammon;" and said: " We must now turn ourselves 
to other means and other defenses, constitutional, indeed, but at the 
same time with spirit pushing resistance to the very bounds of the con- 
stitution. Let there be a wall raised between them and us ; and let 
us say unto them as Abraham said unto Lot : ' Let there be no strife, 
&c. ' Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me : if thou wilt take the 
left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou depart to the right 
hand, then I will go to the left.' 

" Let us lay upon ourselves the injunction which was through Moses 
laid upon the Israelites: ' And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into 
the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city and all 
the spoil thereof: and there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to 
thine hand.' 

" Let us govern ourselves by the advice of the apostle : ' Touch not, 
taste not, handle not, the unclean thing which is theirs.' And for this 
purpose we would recommend that a congress assemble from all the 
states opposed to a protecting tariff", in order to advise and recommend 
to the different legislatures and people, such measures, consistent with 
the constitution, as may seem best calculated to protect them from the 
operation of the tariff bill, and prevent the introduction and use of the 
tariffied articles in their respective states," [Note D.] 



RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 42. 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND 
REFORM. 

Mr. Chilton, an opposition member from Kentucky, on the 22d of 
January, 1828, moved certain resolutions declaring the expediency of a 
speedy discharge of the national debt ; and, in order to its accomplish- 
ment, the necessity of a general system of retrenchment ; and instruct- 
ing the committee of ways and means to report to the house what offices 
might be discontinued, and what salaries might be reduced, and such 
other means of retrenchment as to them might seem necessary. 

These resolutions were the subject of daily debate until the 6th of 
February, when, after haviug been materially modified, they were 
referred to a select committee by a unanimous vote. Professing to 
concur in the principle of the resolutions, and to believe that the sev- 
eral departments of the government had been economically admin- 
istered, the friends of the administration, although they considered the 
introduction of the resolutions as being intended for party effect, made 
no serious opposition to their reference. Reduction of expense in the 
departments of state, of the treasury, of the navy, of war, and of the 
post-office, were mentioned as particular objects of inquiry ; as also the 
contingent funds of these departments, and the compensation of the 
members of congress. The debate was unusually discursive, embracing 
many topics having no relevancy to the general subject. It was marked 
by that strbng party feeling which might be expected from speakers on 
one side who were fully bent on overthrowing the administration, and 
from those on the other, equally determined to sustain it. 

The resolutions were founded upon alleged abuses and want of econ- 
omy in the administration of the government. The specifications made 
by the mover were, that the navy list was crowded ; at West Pointy a 
large number of cadets had been educated at the public expense, who 
were without employment ; a ffth auditor had been appointed for a 
time which had passed away, and his services were no longer necessary ; 
there was an unnecessary number of clerks in most of the public offices ; 
the contingent fund had been improperly used ; many salaries might be 
reduced, and the reduction should begin with the compensation and 
mileage of members of congress ; and there was an unnecessary expen' 
diture for printed documents. 

Although the speakers of the opposition party concurred in the 



422 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

object of the resolutions, there were points upon which the} were not 
entirely unanimous. Messrs. Buchanan, Randolph, and M'DufiSe, 
though they believed in the necessity of reform, did not think the 
present a favorable time, nor the manner proposed a proper one, to 
effect the object. Mr. Buchanan also differed with Mr. Chilton in 
respect to the ofSce of fifth auditor, whose duties had been doubled 
since the office was created. Several members of the opposition also 
opposed a reduction of their compensation. Mr. Chilton subsequently 
said the fifth auditor was not the one whose office he wished discon- 
tinued. He believed, however, there were too many auditors. 

The importance of a speedy payment of the public debt was urged in 
favor of the measure. Mr. Daniel, of Kentucky, suggested that the 
savings made by retrenchment might be divided among the states, to 
be expended in making roads and canals. There were, he said, more 
than 9,000 officers employed in the various departments. He believed 
the office o^ fourth auditor was useless ; and at least three of the audi- 
tors might be dispensed with. Laborers generally were required to work 
during the whole day, while the public officers attended in their offices 
only four or five hours, at extravagant salaries of $1,000 to $3,000. 
Let them perform a greater amouut of labor, and their number might 
be greatly reduced. 

Money, it was said, too, had been taken out of the treasury for wild 
and visionary projects. The operation of the government had not been 
confined to constitutional objects; but a new era had opened upon us, 
and we were about to feel the calamitous effects of the administration. 
The military academy at West Point was denounced as a monarchical 
institution, the benefits of which were confined to the sons of the rich 
and well-born. There were twenty young men, supernumerary 2d lieu- 
tenants, who had been educated at the public expense, and who were 
now supported at their own homes at an annual cost of $15,000 an- 
nually. 

Among the instances of the misapplication of money, was the appoint- 
ment of E.ufus King as minister to London, who was superannuated, 
and known to be incompetent to perform the duties of his mission ; on 
account of which, we had lost the West India trade. Yet his mission 
bad cost $30,000 or $40,000. Another minister (Mr. Gallatin) had 
been sent, who also had returned without having essentially benefitted 
the nation. It was alleged as an abuse, also, that our foreign ministers, 
in addition to their first year's salary of $9,000, were paid an equal 
sum as an outfit. And it was mentioned as an abuse of the contingent 
fund of the state department, that John A. King, secretary of legation, 
who had been left by his father as charge d'affaires at London, had been 



RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 4S3 

paid a salary, or an outfit (4,500) and part of a salary, while he re- 
mained in England, in violation, it was believed, of a law of congress, 
which requires his appointment by the president and senate. John H. 
Pleasants had been paid $1,900 for carrying dispatches to one of our 
ministers in South America ; but instead of performing his mission, he 
had sailed to Europe. The Panama mission had cost $80,000 or 
$100,000, and resulted in no great benefit. Mr. Daniel mentioned other 
things which he co^nsidered abuses, and said he believed that many of the 
offices under the government were mere sinecures, of no manner of good 
to the public, and ought to be abolished. And the president, he said, 
was responsible for the whole, whether these offices existed before he came 
into power or not. He ought to have examined into them, and if any of 
them could be dispensed with, he ought to have pointed them out in his 
message to congress. 

Mr. M'Duffie said he would neither inculpate nor exculpate the 
administration. He would say nothing that would have a bearing on the 
administration in one way or another. The question was not what the 
government had done — that was past — but this was a practical resolu- 
tion, which had reference wholly to future reforms. Whether there 
were abuses or not — whether our ministers had been sent out too often, 
or changed without sufficient reason, were questions not involved in the 
resolution. Whether the Panama mission was expedient, or not, was 
not now before the house ; that mission was at an end ; why was it 
brought up here, and at this time ? As bearing upon the administra- 
tion these things had no business here. 

In reference to the public debt, and the mode of its discharge, he said 
that subject was before the committee of ways and means; and he 
moved that so much of the resolution as referred to the public debt, be 
struck out. All the means which the country possessed of paying that 
debt, were by existing laws to be applied to that object; and no resolu- 
tion would either hasten or retard its payment. 

In the course of the debate the president was also censured for his 
having rewarded with office members of congress who had aided in his 
election. He was accused of having proclaimed doctrines in relation to 
the powers of the general government, incompatible with every notion of 
a limited constitution, the rights of the states, and the liberties of the 
people. And having, by a lawless construction, extended the powers of 
the government, he had threatened a sovereign state (Georgia) with the 
military force of the nation. 

Gentlemen on the other side expressed their willingness to institute 
the inquiry proposed by the resolutions. Mr. Wright, of Ohio, said the 
subject was not a new one. The president, in his message in December^ 



424 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

1826, had said: "It is well for us, however, to be admonished of the 
necessity of abiding by the maxims of the most vigilant economy, and 
of resorting to all honorable expedients, for pursuing, with steady and 
inflexible perseverance, the total discbarge of the debt." And in the 
message of December, 1827, he says: "The deep solicitude felt by all 
classes throughout the union, for the total discharge of the public debt, 
will apologize for the earnestness with which I deem it my duty to urge 
this topic upon the consideration of congress, of recommending to them 
again the strictest economy in the application of the public funds." 

Mr. Wright said he had, two years ago, proposed to amend the rules 
of the house, so as to authorize the raising of a standing committee on 
retrenchment, to ascertain abuses, and suggest measures of economy ; 
and at the last session he had proposed an inquiry into the expenditure 
of the contingent fund of the house. If unnecessary oflBces existed, it 
was not to be charged to the administration, as no new offices had been 
created. Nor had they raised the salaries of any officers, except that of 
the postmaster-general ; and this was demanded by the increasing busi- 
ness of his department. 

The administration was declared to be desirous of paying the public 
debt. The $10,000,000 annually reserved as a sinking fund, must ine- 
vitably pay the debt. The present administration had paid, not only 
the ten millions annually, but a part of the deficiencies of the preced- 
ing administration. 

Of the 9,000 officers said to be employed in the various departments, 
it ought to have been stated, that between 7,000 and 8,000 were deputy 
postmasters. 

The academy at West Point was defended by several members. It 
had been recommended by Washington, and established during the 
administration of Jefferson, and cherished by every subsequent admin- 
istration. The number of cadets to be appointed, and the recommenda- 
tion and selection of candidates for admission, were regulated by law, 
and not by the administration. It was true, there were not always 
vacancies iu the army for the immediate employment of all the cadets ; 
but they soon became merged in the register, and ceased to be super- 
numeraries. The academy was also defended by Mr. Buchanan, an 
opposition member, who considered an institution of this kind as tho 
best plan of military instruction ever devised, and necessary as a means 
of providing for the common defense. The supply of officers, however, 
was too great for the demand of the army ; or, if gentlemen pleased, 
the army was too small for the academy. 

The mission to England, it was said, had been tendered to Gov 
Clinton, of New York, and by him declined, he having just been elected 



RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 425 

governor. It was next offered to Mr. King, who, of all men in the 
nation, was generally acknowledged to be best qualified to settle the 
difficulties between the two countries: and the appointment was such as 
the senate approved. At the time of the appointment, his health was 
sufficient to transact the public business. But he became sick and 
returned home, and soon after died. Mr. G-allatin was appointed as his 
successor. The mission had not been unsuccessful. A treaty had been 
effected, by which $1,200,000 had been allowed us for slaves carried 
away during the last war; and by another treaty, the boundary line 
between the United States and the British colonies had been settled ; 
thus terminating two long standing difficulties between the two countries. 
In relation to the matter of John A. King, it was said, that, from an 
official report of the secretary of state made at the preceding session, 
in answer to a call from the house of representatives, it appeared to have 
been the uniform practice under preceding administrations, when a 
minister left a court before a successor arrived, to leave some one in 
charge of our diplomatic affairs ; and the charge had, perhaps, always 
been devolved upon the secretary of legation. Nor did the compensa- 
tion allowed Mr. King exceed the allowances in similar cases under 
former administrations. 

John H. Pleasants had received, as bearer of dispatches, the usual 
sum, and no more. He embarked for South America, but was prevented 
by sickness from going the whole distance. He however employed a 
person to deliver the dispatches, and the service was satisfactorily per- 
formed. 

The Panama mission, it was said, had received the sanction of both 
houses, and been approved by the nation. What would not have been said 
against the administration, if the invitation to attend the meeting had 
not been accepted? The administration was not responsible for the 
failure of the meeting. 

In reply to the charge, that the West India trade had been lost by 
the diplomatic blunders of the administration, Mr. Bartlett, of New 
Hampshire, stated the facts to be as follows : When, during the admin- 
istration of Mr. Monroe, this subject was under negotiation, our govern- 
ment insisted on having the same privileges in this trade as the British 
North American colonies. That was the question at the close of his 
term. So soon as that point could with decency be surrendered by his 
successor, it was given up. Then the British government insisted on 
regulating the business by reciprocal acts v.' legislation, which would 
have left our commerce to the caprice or interest of parliament, or even 
to the less formal annihilation by a decree in council. This annuncia- 
tion was accompanied with the additional suggestion, that, if we should 



426 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

legislate for such a purpose, they would not even hold out an encourage- 
ment that they would meet us in such compromise. Congress refused 
to act in that crisis, and left the president no alternative but to execute 
former existing laws. But subsequent negotiation had secured to us 
that trade upon a better foundation than any act of parliament would 
give it. Sweden had a treaty yfiK' (jreat Britain, securing reciprocal 
advantages of trade with her W-st India possessions: and by a treaty 
with Sweden, just published, we had secured a trade, on the most ad- 
vantageous terms, to the island of St. Bartholomews. This gave us an 
indirect trade to the British islands, to which our trade had always 
been in articles of necessity to them. They must still have them, and 
pay for the indirectness of the trade, while their ships are excluded from 
the trade to this country, giving us both the outward and home freight. 

Another charge of extravagant expenditure, had been founded upon 
a comparison of this adniiuistratiou with that of Mr. JeflFersou, made 
by Mr. Bives, of Virginia, who considered three or four millions as the 
ordinary current expenses of Mr. Jefferson's administration, and the 
ordinary current expenses of the present, thirteen millions. Mr. Bart- 
lett, by a different process of calculation, made the expenses of the 
former greater, and those of the latter less, than his opponent had done. 
A great change, too, in the condition of the country had taken place. 
At the former period, the house consisted of 140 members, now of 213. 
In the senate there were then 32, now 48. The expenses of the two 
branches was then $164,526, now $471,800. Our army, in 1802, con- 
sisting of 2,400 men, cost $844,009; now it consisted of 6,000 men, 
and cost $2,050,317. There had also been a corresponding increase of 
the navy, and consequently of its expenses. Since that period, too, we 
had paid large sums to extinguish Indian titles. Claims growing out of 
the late war had been paid ; and a million and a half of dollars were 
distributed among the soldiers of the revolution. 

It had been stated, that the expense of foreign intercourse in the last 
three years of Mr. Monroe's administration had been $280,000, and in 
the three first years of the present, $413,000. But in this statement, 
the appropriations for 1825, which had been made before Mr. Adams 
came into office, had been erroneously imputed to him. By comparing 
the appropriations for foreign intercourse for 1823, 1824, and 1825, 
with those for 1826, 1827, and 1828, it would appear, that, in the latter 
period, tlie expense was $27,000 less than in the former. Other compar- 
isons with preceding administrations were made by Mr. B., representing 
the expenses of Mr. Adams' administration to have been less than those 
of its predecessors. 

The appointment of members of congress to office who had voted for 



RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 427 

Mr. Adams in the house, had been referred to as an evidence of the 
corruption of the administration. Mr. Jefferson's administration had 
been held up as a model for imitation. He, too, had been chosen by the 
house ; and he had appointed a larger number of members of congress 
to office than Mr. Adams had. The old charge of bargain and intrigue, 
as connected with the last presidential election, had been reiterated, 
notwithstanding the gentleman from Pennsj'lvauia, (Mr. Buchanan,) who 
had been designated by the accuser as witness, had said in his place to 
this house, and to the world : " Of the charge of corruption in the 
election, I will not speak: if there was any, I know it not." 

Mr. Adams had been charged with " lawless constructions" of the con- 
stitution and laws to extend his power and patronage. And under this 
construction he had appointed foreign ministers on original missions, in 
the recess of the senate. The same power, said Mr. Wright, of Ohio, 
had been exercised by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe ; and 
he cited the instances. Mr. Jefferson had, in the recess of the senate, 
in 1801, instituted the office of secretary of legation, and commissioned 
one such officer to France, and another to Spain ; and he had appointed 
six consuls to places, to which none had been sent before. 

But we have not room to pursue this debate, a large portion of which 
would scarcely be considered creditable to the body in which it occurred. 
It abounded with personalities and criminations. Certain acts of Mr. 
Adams before his election, and those of his competitor for the presidency, 
were made the subject of severe animadversion. 

The motives of the opposition were impugned. Every preceding ad- 
ministration, it was said, had been similarly assailed. The object was to 
overthrow the administration. A certain letter published in the opposi- 
tion papers, and highly applauded, was referred to as evidence of a com- 
bination of the friends of the disappointed rival candidates for this pur- 
pose. The letter said : " To the friends of Jackson and Crawford, those 
of John C. Calhoun are added ; and the union forms such a force of 
numbers, talents, and influence, that it would seem improbable that this 
can be effectively met by Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay and their friends, 
aided by their united experience, ability, patronage, and official advan- 
tages, great as they are. Men are so very sincere in their dislikes, that 
the most opposite natures will coalesce to diminish the power of an object 
of a higher common aversion, and will surrender the strongest personal 
competition to unite for mutual safety." 

On the Gth of February, 1828, the resolutions of Mr. Chilton, having 
been considerably amended, were referred to a select committee, consist- 
of Messrs. Hamilton, Ingham, Sergeant, Kives, Everett, Wickliffe, and 
Wright, of New York. On the 22d of May, this committee reported re- 



428 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

BolutioBS instituting an inquiry, during the recess of congress, into tlie ac- 
counts of Gales and Seaton, as public printers, the prices paid them for 
printing, &c., and whether in any instances, they had departed from the 
standard ; and requiring a report and statement to be submitted at the 
next session of congress. 

On the 24th of May, the last business day of the session preceding 
the day of adjournment, Mr. Hamilton reported a mass of papers and 
documents which had accumulated in the course of the investigations of 
the committee, and stated, that, from want of time, they had not been 
able to prepare the bills and resolutions necessary to carry their recom- ' 
mendation into effect ; but it was their intention to move a recommitment 
of the report for this purpose, on an early day of the next session. A 
minority report was submitted by Mr. Sergeant. 

Accordingly, on the 31st of December, 1S28, Mr. Hamilton moved 
the commitment of the report, and assured the house that the requisite 
bill should be prepared with all possible expedition. On the 24th of 
January, 1829, a resolution on the subject of stationery came up, which, 
after a short debate, was, on motion of Mr. Hamilton, laid on the table 
with a view to its being embraced in the bill about to be reported for the 
whole retrenchment of the house. No bill, however, was reported. 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONEERING. JEFFERSON's OPINIONS OF THE CANDI- 
DATES. ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 

Among the means employed to advance the interests of the candidates 
for the presidency, were attempts, on the part of their friends, to avail 
themselves of the influence of the opinions of Mr. Jefferson. 

On the 20th of November, 1827, a number of citizens of the state of 
Illinois, addressed to Gov. Coles, of that state, a letter, in which they 
said they had seen iu the public papers, opinions said to have been ex- 
pressed to him by Mr. Jefferson of Gen. Jackson, a short time before 
the death of the former. They said also that the United States Tele- 
graph, (the Jackson paper at Washington,) had asserted that he (Gov. 
Coles) had denied ever having made the statements imputed to him, and 
that other papers declared that he had made them : and they requested 
him to state, as nearl}' as possible, the last conversation he had with Mr. 
Jefferson in relation to Gen. Jackson and his fitness for the presidency. 



Jefferson's opinion of the candidates. 429 

Gov. Coles, in liis answer, says the conversation took place on the 1 1th 
jf August, 1825, while on a visit to Monticello. Mr. Jefferson, in 
speaking of the candidates at the last election, expressed a decided pre- 
ference for Mr. Crawford, and his regret that he had lost his health, and 
with it his election. But having failed to elect him, he expressed his 
gratification that the choice had fallen on Mr. Adams, to whom he said 
he had objections, but conceived him to be more safe and fit, and, by his 
acquirements and habits of life, better qualified than Gen. Jackson to 
discharge the duties of the presidency. " In a word," continues the 
' governor, " he spoke of Mr. Adams as an enlightened and experienced 
statesman, of Gen. Jackson as a valiant and successful soldier, with no 
other pretension to the chief magistracy than that derived from his mili- 
tary services. "While conversing about Gen. Jackson, I took occasion to 
say, that the great zeal which had been displayed to elect the general, 
and the extraordinary vote he had received, had made me doubt the 
durability of our free institutions. Mr. Jefferson, in the most emphatic 
manner, said, ' Sir, it has caused me to doubt more than any thing that 
has occurred since the revolution ; that he (Gen. Jackson) did not pos- 
sess the temper, the acquirements, the assiduity, the physical qualifica- 
tions for the office ; that he had been in vai-ious civil offices, and had 
made a figure in none : and that he had completely failed to show him- 
self competent to an executive trust in Florida — in a word', said the ven- 
erable old patriarch, ' there are one hundred men in Albemarle county 
better qualified for the presidency.' " 

The governor said, that, having had a conversation with Thomas W. 
Gilmer, (since governor of Virginia,) and having learned that he had 
repeated the same remark to many others, he (Gov. C.) addressed him 
a note, and received an answer, dated May 27, 1827, in which Mr. Gil- 
mer says : " Mr. Jefferson made no secret of his opinions of Gen. Jackson. 
As a soldier and patriot, the general was regarded by Mr. Jefferson, as 
by the American people, with admiration and gratitude. I speak more 
from information derived from others, than of what I know myself, when 
I say, that Mr. Jefferson's opinion of Gen. Jackson as a statesman was 
less favorable. I believe his opinion on this subject was notorious among 
those who possessed any share of his confidence. 

" I remember to have heard Mr. Jefferson, on one occasion, use an 
expression which struck me, not so much by the sentiment it contained, 
(which, indeed, was a very common one in Virginia,) as the style in which 
it was made. Speaking of the several candidates for the presidency, 
before the last election, he remarked, that ' one might as well make a 
sailor of a cock, or a soldier of a goose, as a president of Andrew Jack- 
son.' These words made an indelible impression on my memory. They 



430 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

were uttered with a tone of sportive, almost with contemptuous derision. 
Mr. Jefferson was descanting at the time when this remark was elicited, 
on the proneness of the multitude to give a man who possessed one vir- 
tue, credit for others which he did not possess, or of the want of discrimi- 
nation in the public mind, where any thing like enthusiasm and favoritism 
was mingled with a subject. 

" It is due, perhaps, to justice and truth to add, that Mr. Jefferson, 
so far as I know, entertained opinions equally unfavorable of John Q. 
Adams as a statesman. I think in the conversation just alluded to, he 
spoke of him as having been always one thing in politics, and having 
undergone no actual change since the days of his pupilage in the school 
of the elder Adams. * * * 

" I have repeatedly heard others speak of Mr. Jefferson's sentiments 
on this subject. I do not recollect to have heard Mr. Jefferson say any 
thing in relation to Gren. Jackson after the late election • and it is not for 
me to surmise what might have been his opinion at this time, were he 
alive. I must say, in conclusion, that I am grieved to find that the 
press has stooped so far below its proper dignity as to use such unbecom- 
ing means to instruct or convince the public." 

The apparent discrepancy in the statements of Messrs. Coles and Gil- 
mer in regard to Mr. Jefferson's opinions of Mr. Adams does not affect 
the veracity of either of these gentlemen, when it is considered that the 
conversation with one of them was antecedent, and that with the other 
subsequent, to the election ; and that, during the intervening period, a 
change in Mr. Jefferson's opinions may have taken place, which is highly 
probable. 

Subsequently to the publication of Mr. Gilmer's letter, by Gov. Coles, 
the former published a statement, (Dec. 1827,) in which he says : " Had 
Mr. Coles desired it, I should have been equally explicit as to the opin- 
ions which Mr. Jefferson at the same time expressed of Mr. Adams, I 
should have stated what Mr. C. would not have been so eager to publish ; 
that while Mr. Jefferson spoke thus in jest of Gen. Jackson's elevation 
to the presidency, he seriously deprecated the election of Mr. Adams as 
an evil portending most calamitous consequences to the country. * * * 
He spoke of Mr. Adams as the federal candidate, whose election would 
be the means of restoring the federal dynasty of 1 798 — as a man whose 
earliest and strongest predilections had been imbibed in the high schools 
of ultra-federalism — whose political principles, however artfully disguised, 
had undergone no change by his pretended apostacy. He regarded Mr. 
Adams a learned rather than wise man — as a politician, more specious 
than sound — possessing many of the erroneous theories, with little of 
the practicability of a statesman." 



offerson's opinio.v o'J ii:.: • . :!D..Tr:s. 431 

Mr. Coles having alluded to a letter from Peter Minor, deceased, to 
his brother Garret Minor, in which were detailed opinions of Mr. Jeffer- 
son similar to those expressed to Mr. Coles, Mr. Gr. Minor procured the 
publication of that part of his brother's letter which relates to Mr. Jef- 
ferson, and which was in answer to one from him, stating that the frienda 
of Mr. Crawford had generally gone over to Gen. Jackson. Mr. P. 
Minor says : " I admire the refuge which you say you are all seeking 
in a body from the oppressions of Mr. Adams' administration. Mr. Jef- 
ferson, of late years, seldom ventured to say any thing on politics ; but 
he observed to a friend, not many weeks before his death, that his faith 
in the self-government of the people had never been so completely shaken 
as it had been by the efforts made at the last election, to place over their 
heads a man who, in every station he ever filled, either military or civil, 
made it a point to violate every order and instruction given him, and 
take his own arbitrary will as the guide of his conduct." 

Another case occurred before the election of 1828, of Mr. Jefferson's 
sentiments being improperly brought into the public prints for the pur- 
pose, as is presumed, of influencing the public mind on the subject of the 
election. 

It will be recollected that, in 1808, Mr. Adams, having become dis- 
satisfied with the federal party, whose views he could no longer represent, 
resigned his seat in the senate of the United States, and became the poli- 
tical friend of Mr. Jefferson, and the supporter of his administration ; 
and it was believed that he then enjoyed, and continued to enjoy, a large 
share of the confidence and good opinion of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jeffer- 
son, as has been already seen, was an advocate of a strict construction of 
the constitution, also called "state rights;" whereas, the inaugural 
address, and the first annual message of Mr. Adams, and the early indi- 
cations of the character of his administration, had shown him to be, in 
the opinion of Mr. Jefferson, too latitudinarian in his views of the pow- 
ers of the general government. And there were those among his oppo- 
nents who alleged that he had never been a true and sincere republican ; 
that his political conversion had been a mere pretense. One of these 
was William B. Giles, of Virginia. 

The presidential election was approaching ; and it is natural to pre- 
sume that either party would gladly avail itself of the influence of Mr. 
Jefferson in favor of its own, or against the opposing candidate. In the 
Richmond Enquirer of the 7th of September, 1827, Mr. Giles caused to 
be published extracts of a letter from Mr. Jefferson, dated December 
26, 1825, in answer to one from Mr. Giles, in relation to Mr. Adams 
and his administration. In this letter, Mr. Jefferson says : 

" I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides 



432 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

with which the federal branch of our government is advancing tow ard 
the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the states, and the consolidar 
tion in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic, and that too, by con- 
structions, which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take 
together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the president, 
and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the 
legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three 
ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their col- 
leagues, the state authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to 
exercise themselves, all functions, foreign and domestic. Under the 
power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agri- 
culture and manufactures, and call it regulation too, to take the earnings 
of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, 
and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. 
Under the authority to establish post-roads, they claim that of cutting 
down mountains for the construction of roads ; of digging canals ; and, 
aided by a little sophistry on the words " general welfare," a right to do, 
not only the acts, to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and 
permitted ; but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the 
general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the 
constitution ? Reason and argument ? You might as well reason and 
argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives 
chosen by ourselves ? They are joined in the combination, some from 
incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient, voting 
together, to outnumber the sound parts, and with majorities of only one, 
two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. * Arc we then to 
stand to our arms ? 

" No ! that must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much 
longer and greater suffering. If every infraction of a compact of so 
many parties, is to be resisted at once as a dissolution of it, none can ever 
be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and long en- 
durance, then, with our brethren while under delusion. Give them time 
for reflection and experience of consequences ; keej) ourselves in a situa- 
tion to profit by the chapter of accidents ; and separate from our com- 
panions only when the sole alternatives left are a dissolution of the union, 
or submission to a government without a limitation of powers. Between 
these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation; 
but, in the meanwhile, the states should be watchful to note every mate- 
rial usurpation of their rights ; to denounce them as they occur in the 
most peremptory terms ; to protest against them as wrongs to which our 
present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or prece- 
dents of rights, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their 



ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 433 

accumulation shall overwei^h their separation. I would go still further, 
and give to the federal member, by regular amendment of the constitution, 
a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the 
states — providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in congress, (log 
rolling, &c.,) by declaring that the federal proportion of each state of the 
moneys so employed, shall be in works within the state, or elsewhere 
with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course 
which I think safest and best as yet. 

" You ask my opinion of the propriety of giving publicity to what is 
stated in your letter as having passed between Mr. John Q. Adams and 
yourself. Of this no one can judge but yourself It is one of those 
questions which belong to the forum of feeling. This alone can decide 
on the degree of confidence implied in the disclosure. Whether, under 
no circumstances, it was to be communicable to others. It does not 
seem to be of that character, or at all to wear that aspect. They are 
historical facts which belong to' the present as well as future time. I 
doubt whether a single fact, known to the world, will carry as clear a 
conviction to it, of the correctness of our knowledge of the treasonable 
views of the federal party of that day, as that disclosed by this most ne- 
farious and daring attempt to dissever the union, of which the Hartford 
Convention was a subsequent chapter ; and both of these having failed, 
consolidation becomes the first book of their history. But this opens 
with a vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who, having 
nothing in them of the feelings or principles of '76, now look to a single 
and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institu- 
tions and moneyed incorporations, under the guise and cloak of their 
favored branches of manufactures, commerce, and navigation, riding 
and ruling over the plundered plowman and beggared yeomanry. This 
will be to them a next blessing to the monarchy of their first aim — and 
perhaps their surest stepping stone to it." 

On the 11th of October, 1828, Judge Archibald Stewart, of Staun- 
ton, Virginia, wrote to Thomas Jefferson Randolph, grandson and exec- 
utor of Thomas Jefferson, saying : " I am advised that among the papers 
in your possession, there is a letter written by your grandfather, vindi 
eating Mr. Adams' political course in the support which he gave to hia 
administration, and the reasons which entitled him to so large a share 
of his confidence. # * * Candid men of all parties will be gratified 
to receive testimony from so pure a source. May I then ask the favoi 
of you to furnish me with a copy of the letter referred to, that it maj 
be laid before the people." 

Mr. Randolph, in compliance with this request, sent a copy of the let- 
ter ; and, in an accompanying letter, said he deemed it no violation of 

28 



434 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

his trust " to allow them (the writings of his grandfather) to be used as 
vindicatory testimony of the character or conduct of any individual." 
He says farther : " The facts contained in this letter have long been 
familiar to me, having often heard them with great interest from my 
grandfather in conversation with others, on different occasions, from the 
date of their occurrence to his death." 

This letter of Mr. Jefferson was dated the 25th of December, 1825, 
the day before that from which the foregoing extracts have been taken ; 
and both were written in answer to a letter from Mr. Giles of the 15th 
of December, in which he communicated to Mr. Jefferson the intention 
of continuing a series of " political disquisitions," which he had been 
writing for the public " on the rapidly progressive usurpations of the 
general government," and of extending these disquisitions into an exami- 
nation of some of the most prominent principles avowed in the recent 
message of the president. " In the performance of this task," he says, 
" I think material aid might be derived from looking back to the period 
of Mr. Adams' political conversion, reviewing the inducements then sug- 
gested by him for his conversion ; and tracing the outlines of the policy 
pursued by him from that time to the present. But I could not permit 
myself to place that transaction before the public without consulting you, 
sir, upon the propriety of the measure." One of the objects of consult- 
ing Mr. Jefferson was to know whether his (Mr. Giles') recollection 
of the inducements suggested by Mr. Adams for his political change was 
correct. 

Mr. Jefferson says in reply : " Far advanced in my 83d year, worn 
down with infirmities which have confined me almost entirely to the house 
for seven or eight months past, it afflicts me much to receive appeals to 
my memory for transactions so far back as that which is the subject of 
your letter. My memory is indeed become almost a blank, of which no 
better proof can probably be given you, than by my solemn protestation 
that I have not the least recollection of your intervention between 
Mr. John Q. Adams and myself, in what passed on the subject of 
the embargo. Not the slightest trace of it remains in my mind. 
Yet I have no doubt of the exactitude of the statement in your letter. 
And the least as I recollect the interview with Mr. Adams to which the 
previous communication which had passed between him and yourself, 
were probably and naturally the preliminary. That interview I remem- 
ber well, not, indeed, in the very words which passed between us, but in 
their very substance, which was of a character too awful, too deeply en- 
graved in my mind, and influencing too materially the course I had to 
pursue, ever to be forgotten. 

" Mr. Adams called on me pending the embargo, and while endeavors 



ADAMS ANP GILES CONTROVERSY. 435 

were making to obtain its repeal. * * * He spoke of the dissatis- 
faction of the eastern portion of our confederacy with the restraints of 
the embargo, then existing, and their restlessness under it. That there 
was nothing that might not be attempted to rid themselves of it. That 
he had information of the most unquestionable certainty, that certain 
citizens of the eastern states, (I think he named Massachusetts particu- 
larl}^) were in negotiation with the agents of the British government, the 
object of which was an agreement, that the New England states should take 
no farther part in the war then going on ; that, without formally declaring 
their separation from the union of the states, they should withdraw 
from all aid and obedience to them ; that their navigation and commerce 
should be free from restraint or interruption by the British ; that they 
should be considered and treated by them as neutrals, and as such might 
conduct themselves towards both parties ; and, at the close of the war, be 
at liberty to rejoin the confederacy. 

" lie assured me that there was imminent danger that the convention 
would take place ; that the temptations were such as might debauch 
many from their fidelity to the union ; and that to enable its friends to 
make head against it, the repeal of the embargo was absolutely neces- 
sary. I expressed a just sense of tlie merit of the information, and of 
the importance of the disclosure to the safety and even salvation of our 
country: and however reluctant I was to abandon the measure, ( a mea- 
sure which, persevered in a little longer, we had subsequent and satis- 
factory assurance would have effected its object completely,) from that 
moment, and influenced by that information, I saw the necessity of 
abandoning it ; and instead of effecting our purpose by this peaceful 
weapon, we must fight it out, or break the union. I then recommended 
to my friends to yield to the necessity of a repeal of the embargo, and 
to endeavor to supply its place by the best substitute in which they 
could procure a general concurrence. 

" I can not too often repeat, that this statement is not pretended to 
be in the very words which passed ; that it only gives faithfully the im- 
pression remaining on my mind. The very words of a conversation are 
too transient and fugitive to be so long retained in remembrance. But 
the substance was too important to be forgotten, not only from the revo- 
lution of measures it obliged me to adopt, but also from the renewals of 
it in my memory on the frequent occasions I have had of doing justice 
to Mr. Adams, by repeating this proof of his fidelity to his country, and 
of his superiority over all ordinary considerations when the safety of 
that was brought into question. 

" With this best exertion of a waning memory which I can command, 
accept assurances of my constant and affectionate friendship and re- 
spect." 



436 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The publication of this letter drew forth a statement by the editors 
of the National Intelligencer, authorized by Mr. Adams to be made, and 
which appeared in that paper of October 21, 1828. As this statement 
contains sundry important facts of the history of the eventful period in 
■which they occurred, and also was the occasion of the correspondence 
which ensued between Mr. Adams and the citizens of Massachusetts 
which afterward took place, we copy it entire. 

" The indistinctness of the recollections of Mr. Jefferson, of whicli 
the letter itself feelingly complains, has blended together three distinct 
periods of time, and the information which he did receive from Mr. 
Adams, with events which afterwards occurred, and of which Mr. Adams 
could not have informed him. It unfortunately happens that this error 
is apparent on the face of the letter itself. It says : ' Mr. Adams called 
on me pending the embargo , and while endeavors were making to obtain 
its repeal.' He afterwards says, that at this interview Mr. Adams, 
among other things, said ' he had information of the most unquestion- 
able certainty, that certain citizens of the eastern states, (I think he 
named Massachusetts particularly,) were in negotiation with agents of 
the British government, the object of which was an agreement that the 
New England states should take no farther part in the war then going 
on,' &c. 

" The embargo was enacted on the 22d of December, 1807, and re- 
pealed by the non-intercourse act on the 1st of March, H'OO. The war 
was declared in June, 1812. 

"In August, 1809, Mr. Adams embarked for Russia, nearly three 
years before the declaration of war, and did not return to the United 
States till August, 1817, nearly three years after the conclusion of the 
peace. 

" Mr. Madison was inaugurated president of the United States on the 
4th of March, 1809. 

" It was impossible, therefore, that Mr. Adams could have given any 
information to Mr. Jefferson of negotiations by citizens of Massachu- 
setts with British agents, during the war, or having relation to it. Mr, 
Adams never had knowledge of such negotiations. 

" The interview to which Mr. Jefferson alludes, took place on the 15th 
of March, 1808, pending the embargo; but, at the session of congress 
before the substitution for it of the non-intercourse act. The informa- 
tion given by Mr. Adams to Mr. Jefferson, had only an indirect refer- 
ence even to the embargo, and none to any endeavors for obtaining its 
repeal. It was the substance of a letter from the governor of Nova 
Scotia tc a person in the state of Massachusetts, written in the summer 
of 1 807 and before the existence of the embargo ; which letter Mr. 



ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 437 

Adams had seen It had been shown to him without any injunction of 
secrecy, and ho betrayed no confidence in communicating its purport to 
Mr. Jeficrson. Its object was to countenance and accredit a calumny 
then extensively prevailing, among the enemies of Mr. Jefferson and 
the opponents of his administration, that he and his measures were sub- 
servient to France ; and it alleged that the British government were 
informed of a plan, determined upon by France, to eifect the conquest 
of the British provinces on this continent, and a revolution in the gov- 
ernment of the United States, as means to which they were first to pro- 
duce war between the United States and England. 

" From the fact that the governor of Nova Scotia had written such a 
letter to an individual in Massachusetts, connected with other facts, and 
with movements of the party then predominant in that state, Mr. Adams 
and Mr. Jefferson drew their inferences, which subsequent events doubt- 
less confirmed; but which inferences neither Mr. Jefferson nor Mr. 
Adams then communicated to each other. This was the only confiden- 
tial interview which, during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, took 
place between him and Mr. Adams. It took place first at the request 
of Mr. Wilson Carey Nicholas, then a member of the house of repre- 
sentatives of the United States, a confidential friend of Mr. Jefferson ; 
next, of Mr. Robinson, then a senator from Vermont ; and lastly, of 
Mr. Giles, then a senator from Virginia — which request is the only 
intervention of Mr. Giles, ever known to Mr. Adams, between him and 
Mr. Jefferson. It is therefore not surprising, that no such interven- 
tion occurred to the recollection of Mr. Jefferson, in December, 1825. 
" This interview was in March, 1808. In May, of the same year, 
Mr. Adams resigned his seat in the senate of the United States. At 
the next session of congress, which commenced in November, 1808, Mr. 
Adams was a private citizen, residing at Boston. The embargo was 
still in force, operating with extreme pressure upon the interests of the 
people, and was wielded as a most effective instrument, by the party 
prevailing in the state, against the administration of Mr. Jeffenson. 
The people were constantly instigated to resistance against it, and juries 
after juries acquitted the violators of it, upon the ground that it was 
unconstitutional, assumed in the face of a solemn decision of the district 
court of the United States. A separation of the union was openly 
stimulated in the public prints, and a convention of delegates of the 
New England states, to meet at New Haven, was intended and proposed. 
"Mr. Giles and several other members of congress, during this session, 
wrote to Mr. Adams confidential letters, informing him of the various 
measures proposed as reinforcements or substitutes for the embargo, and 
soliciting his opinions upon the subject. He answered those letters with 



438 THE AMERICAN STATESilAN. 

frankness and in confidence. He earnestly recommeLded the non-inter- 
course for the embargo; and in giving his reasons for this preference, 
was necessarily led to enlarge upon the views and purposes of certain 
leaders of the party which had the management of the state legislature 
in their hands. He urged that a continuance of the embargo much 
longer would certainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by the 
legislature, and probably by the judiciary of the state. That to quell 
that resistance if force should be resorted to by the government, it 
would produce a civil war ; and that, in that event, he had no doubt the 
leaders of the party would secure the cooperation with them of Great 
Britain. That their object was, and had been for several years, the dis- 
solution of the union, and the establishment of a separate confederation 
he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not provable in a court 
of law ; and that, in the case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain to 
effect that purpose would be as surely resorted to, as it would be indis- 
pensably necessary to the design. 

" That these letters of Mr, Adams to Mr. Giles and to other mem- 
bers of congress, were read or shown to Mr. Jefferson, he never was 
informed. They were written, not for communication to him, but as 
answers to letters of his correspondents, members of congress, soliciting 
his opinions upon measures in deliberation before them, and upon which 
they were to act. He wrote them as the solicited advice of friend to 
friend, both ardent friends to the administration and to their country. 
He wrote them to give to the supporters of the administration of Mr. 
Jefferson in congress, at that crisis, the best assistance, by his informa- 
tion and opinions, in his power. He had certainly no objection that 
they should be communicated to Mr. Jefferson ; but this was neither his 
intention nor desire. In one of the letters to Mr. Giles, he repeated an 
assurance which he had verbally given him during the preceding session 
of congress, that he had for his support of Mr. Jefferson's administra- 
tion no personal or interested motive, and no favor to ask of him what- 
ever. 

" That these letters to Mr. Giles wers by him communicated to Mr. 
Jefferson, Mr. Adams believes from the import of this letter from Mr. 
Jefferson, now first published, and which has elicited this statement 
He believes, likewise, that other letters from him to other members of 
congress, written during the same session, and upon the same subject, 
were also communicated to him; and tLat their contents, after a lapse 
of seventeen years, were blended confusedly in his memory, first with 
the information given by Mr. Adams to him at their interview in March, 
1808, nine months before; and next, with the events which occurred 
during the subsequent war, and of which, however natural as a sequel to 



ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 439 

the information and opinions of Mr. Adams, communicated to him at 
these two preceding periods, he could not have received the information 
from him." 

It will at once appear to the reader, that the matter of the two let- 
ters of Mr. Jefferson is irreconcilable. His more discreet friends at 
the time deeply regretted and censured the course of Mr. Giles in pub- 
lishing the extracts of the letter of the 26th of December, which had 
been the occasion of calling out the other ; the two taken together show- 
ing conclusively the failure of Mr. Jefferson's memory and mental facul' 
ties. They saw no justification for thus violating the sacredness of pri- 
vate correspondence to gratify his own animosities. Mr. Giles was for 
a time suspected of not having correctly represented the contents of the 
letter from which he published extracts. This suspicion was founded 
upon the fact of his having suppressed the letter of the 25th, which bore 
testimony to Mr. Adams' " fidelity to his country," whereas common 
justice required that both letters, if either, should have been given to 
the public. 

Mr. Giles gave as a reason for not publishing the first of the two let 
ters, that he believed it " to have been so undue and unfortunate an 
impression, producing so many palpable errors, as that its publication 
would have done no less injustice to Mr. Jefferson than to the public." 

The statement in the Intelligencer " that Mr. Giles and other mem- 
bers of congress wrote to Mr. Adams confidential letters, informing him 
of the various measures proposed as reinforcements or substitutes for 
the embargo, and soliciting his opinions on the subject ;" and that " he 
answered those letters with frankness and in confidence," Mr. Giles 
denied, and insinuated that Mr. Adams had " invented the extraordi- 
nary tale to screen himself from imputations he could not otherwise 
avoid." Whereupon the editors of the Intelligencer stated that Mr. 
Adams had read to them from his letter-book copies of his letters in 
answer to four letters of Mr. Giles, during the session of 1808-9. 

Mr. Giles having in one of his communications in the Richmond 
Enquirer, used the name of T. J. Randolph in a manner deemed by Mr. 
Randolph " unmerited and uncourteous," the latter addressed a letter 
to the editors of that paper, justifying himself for allowing the letter of 
Mr. Jefferson to be used " to remove certain false impressions, enter- 
tained by the public, of the estimation in which Mr, Adams was held by 
Mr. Jefferson;" explaining that part of the letter of the 25th of Decem- 
ber, 1825, in which Mr. Jefferson was supposed to have committed errors 
in consequence of the failure of his mind and memory ; and administer- 
ing some severe rebukes to Mr. Giles. 

Mr. Randolph thus explains the apparent errors in the letter alluded 



440 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

lo : " Mr. Jefferson uses tlie expression of * the war then going on,' 
and again ' at the close of the war.' Having myself heard the sub- 
stance of this letter from his own lips so often, and its having been so 
long familiar to me, I had not, perhaps, sufficiently adverted to the 
literal construction which would be applied to these words, by persons 
to whom the subject would be new. In the first expression, he alludes 
to the war waged by the belligerents on our commerce, and the war of 
restrictive measures on our part. In the latter he speaks of the actual 
war which was about to take place, and which the whole language of his 
correspondence of that day shows that he believed to be immediate and 
inevitable. How otherwise is the inconsistency of these expressions 
with the following to be accounted for ? ' I saw the necessity of aban- 
doning it ; and instead of effecting our purpose by this 'peaceful wea- 
pon, we must fight it out.' If the first expressions are to be taken 
literally, and not figuratively, great, indeed, must have been the wane 
of mind and of memory, which had become inadequate to detect the 
striking inconsistencies of so short a letter ; copying, too, from the 
rough draft, (as he always did,) and revising carefully everything before 
it passed from his hands.. As an additional evidence that those words 
were used figuratively, and not literally, I quote from a letter of his, 
dated Januaiy 28, 1809, to Mr. Monroe, when the events here spoken 
of were in their actual transit, the following expression : ' Our peace 
and prosperity may be revived.' This taken literally woruld likewise 
suppose the actual existence of war ; for ' peace' to be ' revived,' must 
first hare been lost, and its opposite condition, war, in existence ; and 
yet I presume it is not intended to be insinuated that this fatuity 
existed in 1809." 

Mr. Randolph also states that Mr. Giles omitted one important sen- 
tence in publishing the extracts from the letter of December 26, 1825 : 
that sentence was the first, as follows : " I wrote you a letter yesterday 
of which you will be free to make what use you please. This will con- 
tain matter not intended for the public cye^ " Yet," says Mr. Ran- 
dolph, " this letter was shown immediately after its receipt, [sec Mr. 
Jefferson's letter of January 21, 1826,] and, I am well assured, was 
openly alluded to in a debate in the senate, the letter being at the very 
moment in the pocket of the speaker who based his attack on Mr. Adams 
on the contents of that letter." 

Mr. Giles having stated that " Mr. Jefferson never entertained a good 
opinion of Mr. Adams, perhaps for some time before, and certainly 
never after his message to congress, in December, 1825," Mr. Randolph, 
in reply, refers to the letter before mentioned, of January 21, 1826. 
It was probably an answer to one from a friend who had informed him 



ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 441 

of tlie use Mr. Giles had made of his letter of Decemher preceding. 
The following are extracts from it : 

" Dear Sir : Your favor of Jan. 15th, is received, and I am entirely 
sensible of the kindness of your motives -which suggested the caution it 
recommended ; but I believe what I have done, is the only thing I 
could have done with honor and conscience. Mr. Giles requested me 
to state a fact which he knew himself, and of which he knew me to be 
possessed. What use he intended to make of it, I knew not, nor 
have I a right to inquire, or to indicate any suspicion that he would 
make an unfair one ; that was his concern, not mine ; and his character 
was sufficient to sustain the responsibility for it. * * * With his 
personal controversies I have nothing to do. I never took any part in 
them, or in those of any other person : add to this, that the statement 
I have given him on the subject of Mr. Adams, is entirely honorable to 
him, in every sentiment and fact it contains. There is not a word in it 
which I would wish to recall ; it is one which Mr. Adams himself 
might willingly quote, did he need to quote any thing. It was simply, 
that, during the continuance of the embargo, Mr. Adams informed me 
of a combination, (without naming any one concerned in it,) which had 
for its object the severance of the union, for a time at least ; that Mr. 
Adams and myself, not being then in the habit of mutual consultation 
and confidence, I considered it as the stronger proof of the purity of 
his patriotism, which was able to lift him above all party passions when 
the safety of his country was endangered ; nor have I kept the honor- 
able fact to myself; during the late canvass particularly, I had more 
than once occasion to quote it to persons who were expressing opuiions 
respecting him, of which this was a direct corrective. I have never 
entertained for Mr. Adams any but sentiments of esteem and respect ; 
and if we have not thought alike on political subjects, I yet never 
doubted the honesty of his opinions ; of which the letter in question, 
if published, will be an additional proof. Still I recognize your friend- 
ship in suggesting a review of it." 

Doubts having been expressed of the existence of the letters said to 
have been written to Mr. Adams by Mr. Giles, during the session of 
1808-9, they were procured from Mr. Adams' domicile in Massachu- 
setts, and published. In them Mr. Giles speaks of the " purity and 
disinterestedness" of Mr. Adams — expresses the hope that he would 
" again appear upon the theater of public life" — and applauds him for 
his "judicious and independent conduct." 



442 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



CHAPTER XXXIV. 

POLITICS OF 1808. MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. CHARGE 

OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 

As might have been expected, the publication of the letter of Mr 
Jefferson of the 25th of December, 1825, to Mr. Giles, detailing the 
disclosures of Adams respecting the designs of the eastern federalists 
in 1808, and the statement, authorized by Mr. Adams, and published 
in the National Intelligencer, produced considerable excitement among 
the leading men of Massachusetts, and, at least for a time, alienated in 
a measure the affections, and impaired the confidence and esteem of 
many of the friends of Mr. Adams in that state. 

On the 26th of November, 1828, thirteen citizens of Massachusetts 
residing in and near Boston, addressed a letter to Mr. Adams, asking 
from him such a full and precise statement of the facts and evidence 
relating to this accusation, as might enable them Fairly to meet and 
answer it. Although they did not claim the title of " leaders " of any 
party in Massachusetts, they said they were associated in politics with 
the party alluded to ; some of them had concurred in all the measures 
adopted by that party ; and all of them warmly approved and support- 
ed those measures. They requested Mr. Adams to state, who were 
the parsons, designated as leaders of the party prevailing in Massachusetts, 
whoso object was a dissolution of the union, and the establishment of a 
separate confederation; and what was the evidence. 

These citizens say : " A charge of this nature, coming as it does from 
the first magistrate of the nation, acquires an importance which we can 
not affect to disregard; and it is one which we ought not to leare 
unanswered. We are therefore constrained, by a regard to our deceased 
friends, and to our posterity, as well as by a sense of what is due to our 
own honor, most solemnly to declare, that we have never known nor 
suspected that the party which prevailed in Massachusetts in the year 
1808, or any other party in this state, ever entertained the design to 
produce a dissolution of the union, or the establishment of a separate 
confederation. It is impossible for us in any other manner to refute,, 
or even to answer this charge, until we see it fully and particularly 
stated, and know the evidence by which it is to be maintained." 

The letter was signed by H. G. Otis, Israel Thorudike, T. II. Per- 
kins, "William Prescott, Daniel Sargcn/;, John Lowell, Wm. Sullivan, 
Charles Jackson, Warren Dutton, Dcuj Pickman, Henry Cabot, C. C 



MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 443 

Parsons, and Franklin Dexter. The last three were the sons and 
representatives of George Cabot, Theophilus Parsons, and Samuel 
Dexter, deceased. 

The reply of Mr. Adams is of such length as to forbid its insertion 
entire. He said he could not recognize the persons who addressed him 
as the representatives of the party alluded to ; and he undertook to 
show the impropriety of answering their interrogatories. He does, how- 
ever, detail some of the facts upon which he founds the charge of a 
design to separate from the union. He says : 

" The simple fact of which I apprised Mr. Jefferson was, that, in the 
summer of 1807, about the time of what was sometimes called the affair 
of the Leopard and the Chesapeake, I had seen a letter from the gov- 
ernor of Nova Scotia to a person in Massachusetts, affirming that the 
British government had certain information of a plan by that of France, 
to conquer the British possessions, and to effect a revolution in the 
United States, by means of a war between them and Great Britain. 
As the United States and Great Britain were in 1807 at peace, a cor- 
respondence with the governor of Nova Scotia, held by any citizen of 
the United States, imported no violation of law ; nor could the corres- 
pondent be responsible for any thing which the governor might write. 
But my inferences from this fact were, that there existed between the 
British Government and the party in Massachusetts opposed to Mr. 
Jefferson, a channel of communication through the governor of Nova 
Scotia, which he was exercising to inflame their hatred against France, 
and their jealousies against their own government. The letter was 
not to any leader of the federal party ; but I had no doubt it had becL 
shown to some of them, as it had been to me, without injunction of 
secrecy ; and, as I supposed, with a view to convince me that this con- 
spiracy between Napoleon and Mr. Jefferson really existed. How that 
channel of communication might be further used, was matter of conjec- 
ture ; for the mission of John Henry was nine months after my inter- 
view with Mr. Jefferson, and precisely at the time I was writing to my 
friends in congress the letters ui'ging the substitution of the non-inter- 
course for the embargo. Of Mr. Henry's mission I knew nothing until 
it was disclosed by himself in 1812. 

"It was in these letters of 1808 and 1809, that I mentioned the 
design of certain leaders of the federal party to effect a dissolution of 
the union, and the establishment of a northern confederacy. This 
design had been formed in the winter of 1803 and 4, immediately after, 
and as a consequence of the acquisition of Louisiana. Its justifying 
causes to those who entertained it were, that the annexation of Louisiana 
to the union transcended the constitutional powers of the government 



■ilA THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of tbe United States; that it formed in fact a new confederacy to which 
the states, united by the former compact, were not bound to adhere ; 
that it was oppressive to the interests and destructive to the influence 
of the northern section of the confederacy, whose right and duty it 
therefore was to secede from the new body politic, and to constitute one 
of their own. This plan was so far matured, that the proposal had been 
made to an individual to permit himself at the proper time, to be placed 
at the head of the military movements, which it was foreseen would be 
necessary for carrying it into execution. lu all this there was no overt 
act of treason. In the abstract theory of our government, the obedience 
of the citizen is not due to an unconstitutional law. He may lawfully 
resist its execution. If a single individual undertakes this resistance, 
our constitutions, both of the United States, and of each separate state, 
have provided a judiciary power, judges, and juries, to decide between 
the individual and the legislative act which he has resisted as unconsti- 
tutional. But let us suppose the case that the legislative acts of one or 
more states of this union are passed, conflicting with acts of congress, 
and commanding the resistance of their citizens against them, and what 
else can be the result but war — civil war ? And is not that de facto a 
dissolution of the union, so far as the resisting states are concerned ? 
And what would be the condition of every citizen of the resisting states ? 
Bound by the double duty of allegiance to the union and to the state, 
he would be crushed between the upper and nether millstone, with the 
performance of every civic duty converted into a crime, and guilty of 
treason, by every act of obedience to the law." 

Mr. Adams said his opinion was, that the power of annexing Louisiana 
to the union had not been delegated to congress by the constitution ; 
and this was recorded on the journals of the senate, of which he was 
then a member. The bills, however, making appropriations for carrying 
the convention into effect, and for enabling the president to take posses- 
sion of the ceded territory, which were opposed by those who had voted 
against tlie ratification of the treaty, he had warmly and cordially sup- 
ported. 

The following paragraphs are given on account of the constitutional 
opinions expressed in them, in relation to the purchase and annexation 
of Louisiana, and to the secession of states : 

" I had no doubt of the constitutional power to make the treaties. It 
is expressly delegated in the constitution. The power of making the 
stipulated payment for the cession, and of taking possession of the ceded 
territory, was equally unquestioned by me ; — they were constructive 
powers, but I thought them fairly incidental, and necessarily consequent 
upon the power to make the treaty. But the power of annexing the in- 



MR. ADAMS ANL THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 445 

habitants of Louisiana to the union, of conferring upon them m a mass, 
all the rights, and requiring of them all the duties of citizens of the 
United States, it appeared to me had not been delegated to congress by 
the people of the union, and could not have been delegated by them^ 
without the consent of the people of Louisiana themselves. I thought 
they required an amendment of the constitution, and a vote of the 
people of Louisiana; and I offered to the senate resolutions for carrying 
both those measures into effect, which were rejected. 

" It has been recently ascertained, by a letter from Mr. Jefferson to 
Mr. Dunbar, written in July, 1803, after he had received the treaties, 
and convened congress to consider them, that, in his opinion, the treaties 
could not be carried into effect without an amendment to the constitu- 
tion ; and that the proposal for such an amendment would be the first 
measure adopted by them at their meeting. Yet Mr. Jefferson, presi- 
dent of the United States, did approve the acts of congress, assuming 
the power which he had so recently thought not delegated to them, and, 
as the executive of the union, carried them into execution. 

" Thus Mr. Jefferson, president of the United States, the federal 
members of congress, who opposed and voted against the ratification of 
the treaties, and myself, all concurred in the opinion, that the Louisiana 
cession treaties transcended the constitutional powers of the government 
of the United States. But it was, after all, a question of constructive 
power. The power of making the treaty was expressly given without 
limitation. The sweeping clause, by which all powers necessary and 
proper for carrying into effect, those expressly delegated, may be under- 
stood as unlimited. It is to be presumed, that, when Mr. Jefferson ap- 
proved and executed the acts of congress assuming the doubtful power, 
he had brought his mind to acquiesce in this somewhat latitudinarian 
construction. I opposed it as long and as far as my opposition could 
avail. I acquiesced in it after it had received the sanction of all the or- 
ganized authority of the union, and the tacit acquiescence of the people 
of the United States and of Louisiana. Since which time, I have con- 
sidered the question as irrevocably settled. 

" But, in reverting to the fundamental principle of all our constitu- 
tions, that obedience is not due to an unconstitutional law, and that ita 
execution may be lawfully resisted, you must admit, that, had the laws 
of congress for annexing Louisiana to the union been resisted, by the 
authority of one or more of the states of the then existing confederacy, 
as unconstitutional^ that resistance might have been carried to the ex- 
tent of dissolving the union, and of forming a new confederacy ; and 
that, if the consequences of the cession had been so oppressive upon 
New England and the north, as was apprehended by the federal leaders, 



446 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

to whose conduct at that time all these observations refer, the project 
which they did then form of severing the union, and establishing a 
northern confederacy, would, in their application of the abstract principle 
to the existing state of things, have been justifiable. In tlieir views, 
therefore, I impute to them nothing which it could be necessary for them 
to disavow : and, accordingly, these principles were distinctly and ex- 
plicitly avowed, eight years afterwards, by my excellent friend, Mr. 
Quincy, in his speech upon the admission of Louisiana, as a state, into 
the union. Whether he had any knowledge of the practical project of 
1803 and 4, I know not; but the argument of his speech, in which he 
referred to my recorded opinions upon the constitutional power, was 
an eloquent exposition of the justifying causes of that project, as I 
had heard them detailed at the time. That project, I repeat, had gone 
to the length of fixing upon a military leader for its execution ; and 
although the circumstances of the times never admitted of its execution, 
nor even of its full development, I had yet no doubt, in 1S08 and 1809, 
and have no doubt at this time, that it is the key to all the great move- 
ments of these leaders of the federal party in New England, from that 
time forward, till its final catastrophe in the Hartford convention. * * * 

" It was this project of 1803 and 4, which, from the time when I first 
took my seat in the senate of the United States, alienated me from the 
secret councils of those leaders of the federal party. I was never inti- 
mated in them. I approved and supported the acquisition of Louisiana ; 
and from the first moment that the project of separation was made 
known to me, I opposed to it a determined and inflexible resistance. 
* * * My principles do not admit the right even of the people, still less 
the legislature of any one state in the union, to secede at pleasure from 
the union. No provision is made for the exercise of this right, either by 
the federal or any of the state constitutions. The act of exercising it, 
presupposes a departure from the principle of compact, and a resort to 
that of force. 

" If, in the exercise of their respective functions, the legislative, ex- 
ecutive, and judicial authorities of the union on one side, and of one or 
more states on the other, are brought into direct collision with each other, 
the relations between the parties are no longer those of constitutional 
right, but of independent force. Each party construes the compact for 
itself. The constructions are irreconcilable together. There is no um- 
pire between them ; and the appeal is to the sword, the ultimate arbiter 
of right between independent states, but not between the members of one 
body politic. I therefore hold it as a principle without exception, that 
whenever the constituted authorities of a state authorize resistance to 
any act of congress, or pronounce it unconstitutional, they do thereby 



MK. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 447 

declare themselves and their state quoad hoc out of the pale of the 
union. That there is no suppasable case in which the people of a state 
might place themselves in this attitude, by the primitive right of insur- 
rection against oppression, I will not affirm : but they have delegated no 
such power to their legislatures or their judges ; and if there be such a 
right, it is the right of an individual to commit suicide — the right of an 
inhabitant of a populous city to set fire to his own dwelling house. But 
to those who think that each state is a sovereign judge, not only of its 
own rights, but of the extent of powers conferred on the general govern- 
ment by the people of the whole union ; and that each state, giving its 
own construction to the constitutional powers of congress, may array its 
separate sovereignty against every act of that body transcending this es- 
timate of their powers — to say of men holding these principles, that, 
for the ten years from 1804 to 1814, they were intending a dissolution 
of the union, and the formation of a new confederacy, is charging them 
with nothiog more than with acting up to their own principles." 

Mr. Adams then proceeds to say : " To the purposes of party leaders 
intending to accomplish the dissolution of the union and form a new con- 
federacy, two postulates are necessary : First, an act or acts of congress 
which may be resisted, as unconstitutional ; and, secondly, a state of ex- 
citement among the people of one or more states of the union, sufficiently 
inflamed to produce acts of the state legislatures conflicting with the acts 
of congress. Resolutions of the legislatures denying the powers of con- 
gress, are the first steps in this march to disunion ; but they avail no- 
thing without subsequent and corresponding action. The annexation of 
Louisiana to the union was believed to be unconstitutional ; but it pro- 
duced no excitement to resistance among the people. Its beneficial con- 
sequences to the whole union were soon felt, and took away all possibility 
of holding it up as the labarum of a political religion of disunion. 

" The projected separation met with other disasters, and slumbered 
till the attack of the Leopard on the Chesapeake, followed by the orders 
in council of 11 th November, 1807, led to the embargo of the 22d De- 
cember of that year. The first of these events brought the nation to 
the brink of war with Great Britain ; and there is good reason to believe 
that the second (the orders in council) was intended as a measure familiar 
to the policy of that government, to sweep our commerce from the ocean, 
carrying into British ports every vessel of ours navigating upon the seas, 
and holding them, their cargoes, and their crews in sequestration, to aid 
in the negotiation of Mr. Rose, and bring us to the terms of the British 
Cabinet. This was precisely the period at which the governor of Nova 
Scotia was giving to his correspondent in Massachusetts, the friendly 
warning from the British government of the revolutionizing and conquer- 



448 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Ing plan of France, which was communicated to me, and of which I ap 
prised Mr. Jefferson. 

" The embargo, in the mean time, had been laid, and had saved most 
of our vessels and seamen from the grasp of the British cruisers. It 
had rendered impotent the British orders in council ; but at the same 
time it had choked up the channels of our own commerce. As its ope- 
ration bore with heavy pressure upon the commerce and navigation of 
the north, the federal leaders soon began to clamor against it ; then to 
denounce it as unconstitutional ; and then to call upon the commercial 
states to concert measures among themselves to resist its execution. The 
question made of the constitutionality of the embargo, only proved, that, 
in times of violent popular excitement, the clearest delegation of a power 
to congress will no more shield the exercise of it from a charge of usur- 
pation, than that of a power the most remote, implied or constructive. 
The question of the constitutionality of the embargo was solemnly argued 
before the district court of the United States at Salem ; and although 
the decision of the judge was in its favor, it continued to be argued to 
the juries ; and even when silenced before them, was in the distemper of 
the times so infectious, that the juries themselves habitually acquitted 
those charged with the violation of that law. There was little doubt, 
that, if the constitutionality had been brought before the state judiciary 
of Massachusetts, the decision of the court would have been against the 
law. 

" The first postulate for the projectors of disunion was thus secured. 
The second still lingered ; for the people, notwithstanding their excite- 
ment, still clung to the union, and the federal majority in the legislature 
was very small. Then was brought forward the first project for a con- 
vention of delegates from the New England states to meet in Connecti- 
cut ; and then was the time at which I urged, with so much earnestness, 
by letters to my friends at Washington, the substitution of the non-inter- 
course for the embargo. 

" The non-intercourse was substituted. The arrangement with Mr. Er- 
skine soon after ensued ; and in August, 1809, 1 embarked upon a public 
mission to Russia. My absence from the United States was of eight 
years' duration ; and I returned to take charge of the state department 
in 1817. The rupture of Mr. Erskine's arrangement; the abortive mission 
of Mr. Jackson ; the disclosures of Mr. John Henry ; the war with Great 
Britain ; the opinion of the judges of the supreme court of Massachusetts 
that, by the constitution of the United States, no power was given eithei 
to the president or to congress, to determine the actual existence of thr. 
exigencies upon which the militia of the several states may be employed iv 
the service of the United States; and the Hartford convention; — all 



MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 449 

happened during my absence from this country. I forbear to pursue 
the narrative. The two postulates for disunion were nearly consum- 
mated. The interposition of a kind Providence, restoring peace to our 
country and to the world, averted the most deplorable of catastrophes, 
and turning over to the receptacle of things lost upon earth, the ad- 
journed convention from Hartford to Boston extinguished (by the mercy 
of Heaven may it be forever !) the projected New England confederacy. 

" It is not improbable, that, at some future day, a sense of solemn duty 
to my country may require me to disclose the evidence which I do possess, 
and for which you call. But of that day the selection must be at my own 
judgment ; and it may be delayed till I myself shall have gone to answer 
for the testimony I may bear, before the tribunal of your G-od and 
mine. Should a disclosure of names even then be made by me, it will, 
if possible, be made with such reserve, as tenderness to the feelings of 
the living, and to the families and friends of the dead may admonish." 

Mr. Adams having stated in his reply, that " it would have been moro 
satisfactory to him to receive the inquiry separately from each indi- 
vidual," and having intimated that he should not continue correspond- 
ence with i\iem jointly^ the thirteen " citizens of Massachusetts" address 
their rejoinder " to the citizens of the United States." Their "appeal" 
is a very long as well as a very able one ; and however conclusive to Mr. 
Adams may have been the evidence of a design to separate from tlie 
union, a perusal of the appeal can hardly fail to remove from the mind 
of an impartial reader, any suspicion which he might have entertained, 
that these gentlemen were justly chargeable with the designs imputed by 
Mr. Adams to " certain leaders''' of the federal party in Massachusetts. 

The charge so often made against the state of Massachusetts of de- 
signs hostile to the union, the appeal pronounces a " calumny;" and the 
writers, in vindicating themselves and the federal party, claim it as a right 
to demand of their accuser the grounds of the accusation. They do not 
see any good reason why by their uniting with each other in their applica- 
tion, Mr. Adams should be authorized to disregard their claim. And 
although they did not arrogate to themselves the title of " leaders," yet 
having " avowed such a close political connection with all who could pro- 
bably have been included in that appellation, as to render them responsible 
for all their political measures that were known to them," they were 
interested, and entitled to make this demand of Mr. Adams ; and by de 
dining to answer their interrogatories, he had placed himself in the pre 
dicament of an unjust accuse?'. 

In speaking of the project to dissolve the union, so far as it applied 
to the men who directed the affairs of Massachusetts, and to the mea- 
sures adopted, these gentlemen said it " probably existed only in tht 

29 



450 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

distempered fancy of Mr. Adams." The object of the letter of the 
governor of Nova Scotia, he supposed, was to accredit a calumny, that 
Mr. Jefferson and his measures were subservient to France. The 
British government had been informed that France intended to conquer 
the British provinces on this continent, and effect a revolution in the 
government of the United States j in order to which, a war was to be 
produced between the United States and England. They said : " A 
letter of this tenor was no doubt shown to Mr. Adams, as we must 
believe upon his word. The discovery would not be surprising, that the 
British as well as French officers and citizens, in a time of peace with 
this country, availed themselves of many channels for conveying their 
speculations and stratagems to other innocent ears as well as to those 
of Mr. Adams, with a view to influence public opinion. But the subject 
matter of the letter was an absurdity. Who did not know, that, in 
1807, after the battle of Trafalgar, the crippled navy of France could 
not undertake to transport even a single regiment across the British 
channel ? And if the object was the conquest of the British provinces 
by the United States alone, how could a revolution in our government, 
which must divide and weaken it, promote that end ? 

" The folly of a British governor in attempting to give currency to a 
story which savors so strongly of the burlesque, can be equalled only 
by the credulity of Mr. Adams in believing it calculated to produce 
effect ; and if he did so believe, it furnishes a criterion by which to 
estimate the correctness and impartiality of his judgment concerning 
the weight and the application of the other evidence which he still with- 
holds, and from which he has undertaken, with equal confidence, to 
draw his inferences.' After the adjustment of the diplomatic prelimi- 
naries with Mr. Giles and others, Mr. Adams communicated nothing 
to Mr. Jefferson, but the substance of the Nova Scotia letter. If Mr. 
Adams had then known and believed in the ' project,' (the ' key' to all 
future proceedings,) it is incredible that it should not have been deemed 
worthy of disclosure — at that time, and on that occasion." 

In their examination of the alleged project of 1803 and 4, they say: 
" In the first place, we solemnly disavow all knowledge of such a project, 
and all remembrance of the mention of it, or of any plan analagous to 
it, at that or any subsequent period. Secondly, while it is obviously 
impossible for us to controvert evidence of which we are ignorant, we 
are well assured it must be equally impossible to bring any facts which 
can be considered evidence to bear upon the designs or measures of 
those who, at the time of Mr. Adams' interview with Mr. Jefferson, and 
afterwards, during the war, took an active part in the public afiairs of 
Massachusetts. 



CHARGE OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 451 

" The effort discernible throughout this letter, to connect those later 
events, which were of a public nature, and of which the natural and 
adequate causes were public, with the mysterious project known only to 
himself, of an earlier origin and distinct source, is in the last degree 
violent and disingenuous. 

" The cession of Louisiana to the United States, when first promulged, 
was a theme of complaint and dissatisfaction in this part of the country. 
This could not be regarded as factious or unreasonable, when it is 
admitted by Mr. Adams, that Mr. Jefferson and himself entertained 
constitutional scruples and objections to the provisions of the treaty of 
cession. Nothing, however, like a popular excitement grew out of the 
measure ; and it is stated by Mr. Adams, that this project ' slumbered'' 
until the period of the embargo, in December, 1807. Suppose then, for 
the moment, (what we have not a shadow of reason for believing, and 
do not believe,) that upon the occasion of the Louisiana treaty, ' certain 
leaders,' influenced by constitutional objections, (admitted to be com- 
mon to Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adams, and themselves,) had conceived a 
project of separation, and of a northern confederacy, as the only pro- 
bable counterpoise to the manufacture of new states in the south, does 
it followHhat, when the public mind became reconciled to the cession, 
and the beneficial consequences of it were realized, (as it is conceded by 
Mr. Adams was the case,) these same ' leaders,' whoever they might 
be, would still cherish the embryo project, and wait for other contin- 
gencies to enable them to effect it ? On what authority can Mr. Adams 
assume that the project merely * slumbered' for years, if his private 
evidence applies only to the time of its origin ? 

" The opposition to the measures of government in 1808, arose from 
causes which were common to the people, not only of New England, 
but of all the commercial states, as was manifested in New York, Phila- 
delphia, and elsewhere. By what process of fair reasoning, then, can 
that opposition be referred to, or connected with, a plan which is said 
to have originated in 1804, and to have been intended to embrace merely 
a northern confederacy ? It was believed in New England, that new 
members could not be added to the confederacy beyond the territorial 
limits of the contracting parties, without the consent of those parties. 
This was considered as a fair subject of remonstrance, and as justifying 
proposals for an amendment of the constitution. But so far were the 
federal party from attempting to use this as an additional incentive to 
the passions of the day, that, in a report made to the legislature of 
1813, by a committee of which Mr. Adams' 'excellent friend,' Josiah 
Quincy, was chairman, (Louisiana having at this time been admitted 
into the union,) it is expressly stated, that ' they have not been disposed 



452 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

to connect this great constitutional question with the transient calami- 
ties of the day, from wliich it is in their opinion apparently distin- 
guished, both in its cause and consequence.' " 

The}^ nest refer to the embargo, the pretexts for which, tliey say, 
were deemed by the people of Massachusetts a mockery to their suffer- 
ings. Owning nearly one-third of the tonnage of the United States, they 
felt that their voice ought to be heard in what related to its security 
Depending chieflj^ on their foreign trade and fisheries for sujjport, their 
situation appeared desperate. They could not consider the annihilation 
of their trade as included in the power to regulate it. To the lawyers, 
statesmen, and citizens of Massachusetts, the embargo law appeared a 
direct violation of the constitution. War followed, and aggravated the 
public distress. The state was deprived of garrisons for her ports, and 
was left during the war nearly defenseless; her citizens subject to 
incessant alarm ; her territory invaded ; her own militia arrayed, and 
encamped at an enormous expense ; pay and subsistence from her nearly 
exhausted treasury, and reimbursement refused even to this day," Hav- 
ing thus described the condition of the state, the address proceeds : 

" Now, what, under the pressure and excitement of these measures, 
was the conduct of the federal party, with the military force of the state 
in their hands; with the encouragement to be derived from a conviction 
that the northern states were in sympathy with their feelings ? Did 
they resist the laws? Not in a solitary instance. Did they threaten a 
separation of the states? Did they array their forces with a show of 
such a disposition ? Did the government or people of Massachusetts, 
in any one instance, swerve from their allegiance to the union ? The 
revei'se of all this is the truth. Abandoned by the national government, 
because she declined-, for reasons which her highest tribunal adjudged to 
be constitutional, to surrender her militia into the hands of a military 
prefect, although they were always equipped, and ready and fiiithful 
under their own officers, she nevertheless clung to the union as to the 
ark of her safety ; she ordered her well trained militia into the field ; 
stationed them at the points of danger; defrayed their expenses from her 
own treasury; and garrisoned with them her national forts. All her 
taxes and excises were paid with punctuality and promptness, an exam- 
ple by no means followed by some of the states, in which the cry for 
war had been loudest. These facts are recited for no other purpose but 
that of preparing for the inquiry, what becomes of Mr. Adams' ' key,' 
his * project,' and his ' postulates ?' The latter were to all intents and 
purposes, to use his own language, ' consummated.' 

" Laws unconstitutional in the public opinion had been enacted. The 
great majority of an exasperated people were in a state of the highest 



CHARGi: 3F AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 453 

escitement. The legislature, (if his word be taken,) was imd«jr * the 
management of the leaders.' The judicial courts were on their side- 
and the juries were, as he pretends, contaminated. All the combusti- 
bles for revolution were ready. "When, behold ! instead of a dismem- 
bered union, military movements, a northern confederacy, and British 
alliance, accomplished at the favorable moment of almost total prostra- 
tion of the credit and power of the national rulers, a small and peaceful 
deputation of grave citizens, selected from the ranks of civil life, the 
legislative councils, assembled at Hartford. There, calm and collected, 
like the pilgrims from whom they descended, and not unmindful of those 
who achieved the independence of their country, they deliberated on the 
most effectual means of preserving for their fellow-citizens and their 
descendants the civil and political liberty which had been won, and 
bequeathed to them." 

The "appeal" then enters into a defense of that convention, which, it 
is alleged, " has been subjected to heavier imputations, under an entire 
deficiency, not only of proof, but of probability, than ever befel any 
other set of men, discharging merely the duties of a committee of a 
legislative body, and making a public report of their doings to their 
constituents. These imputations have never assumed a precise form* 
but vague opinions have prevailed of a combination to separate the 
union." 

The grounds on which the convention was defended, are : 

First, the constitutional right of a state to appoint delegates to such 
a convention. The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable 
manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good, and to request 
of their rulers, by address, petition, or remonstrance, a redress of wrongs 
and grievances. 

Secondly, the propriety and expediency of exercising that right at 
that time. The grievances suffered and the dangers apprehended, and 
the strong excitement which they produced among all the people, ren- 
dered some measures for their relief indispensably necessary. 

Thirdly, the objects intended to be attained by it, and the powers 
given for that purpose, by the state to the delegates. The excitement 
was great, amounting almost to desperation. It was thought the mea- 
sures called for would be more prudently and safely conducted by the 
government of the state, than by unorganized bodies of individuals, 
excited by what they considered unjust and oppressive measures of the 
general government. No secret action was taken on the subject by the 
legislature. The resolution for appointing the delegates and prescrib- 
ing their powers and duties, was openly discussed and passed ; and a 
copy of it was sent to the governor of every state in the union. 



454 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Fourthly, the manner in which the delegates exercised their power. 
This appears from their report, which was immediately published, and 
which set forth and enforced, by elaborate reasoning, the paramount 
importance of the union ; and there was no just ground for imputing to 
them covert and nefarious designs. The main and avowed object of the 
convention was the defense of this part of the country against the com- 
mon enemy. New England was destitute of national troops; her trea- 
sures were exhausted ; and her taxes drawn into the national coffers. 

The appeal says farther : " The burden of that report consisted in 
recommending an application to congress to permit the states to provide 
for their own defense, and to be indemnified with the expense, by reim- 
bursement, of at least a portion of their own money. This convention 
adjourned early in January. On the 27th of the same month, an act of 
congress was passed, which gave to the state governments the very power 
which was sought by Massachusetts, viz : that of raising, organizing, 
and oflScering state troops, to be employed in the state raising the same, 
or in an adjoining state, and providing for their pay and subsistence. 
This, we repeat, was the most important object aimed at by the institu- 
tion of the convention, and by the report of that body. * * * It 
is indeed grievous to perceive Mr. Adams condescending to intimate 
that the convention was adjourned to Boston, and, in a strain of rheto- 
rical pathos, connecting his imaginary plot, then at least in the thirteenth 
year of its age, with the catastrophe which awaited the ultimate pro- 
ceedings of the convention. That assembly adjourned without day, 
after making its report. It was ipso facto dissolved, like other com- 
mittees. One of its resolutions did indeed purport, that ' if the appli- 
cation ot these states to the government of the United States should be 
unsuccessful, and peace should not be concluded, and the defense of 
these states should be neglected as it has been since the commencement 
of the war, it will be, in the opinion of this convention, expedient for 
the legislatures of the several states, to appoint delegates to another 
convention, to meet at Boston on the third Tuesday of June next, with 
such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous 
may require.' " 

The " appeal" concludes as follows : " The causes of past controver- 
sies, passing, as they were, to oblivion, among existing generations, and 
arranging themselves, as they must do, for the impartial scrutiny of 
future historians, the revival of them can be no less distasteful to the 
public than painful to us. Yet it could not be expected, that while Mr. 
Adams, from his high station sends forth the unfounded suggestions of 
his imagination or his jealousy, as materials for present opinion and 
future history, we should, by silence, give countenance to his charges ; nor 



CHARGE OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 455 

that we should neglect to vindicate ourselves, our associates, and our 
fathers." 

These extracts from the letter of Mr. Adams, and the appeal of his 
opponents, have been extended to great length : they are, however, not 
more copious than justice to the parties seemed to require. Scarcely 
ever has there been in this country a political excitement so incessant and 
so intense, and for an equal period of time, as from 1807 to 1814. No 
political assembly ever obtained a more odious notoriety than the Hart- 
ford convention. It was extensively believed at the time, and is by 
many even at this day, to have had treasonable designs. Facts and cir- 
cumstances existed which afforded ground for the suspicions so generally 
entertained. It is, however, but just to say, that no evidence has ever 
been elicited upon which that convention can be convicted of intentions 
hostile to the union. 

But the sequel to this controversy has not yet been given. William 
Plumer, a senator in congress from Hew Hampshire in 1803 and 1804, 
in a letter to Mr. Adams of the 20th of December, 1828, states, that, 
during that session of congress, several federalists, senators, and repre- 
sentatives, from the New England States, informed him, at different 
times and places, that they thought it necessary to establish a separate 
government in New England. He says : " Just before that session of 
congress closed, one of the gentlemen to whom I have alluded, informed 
me that arrangements had been made to have the next autumn, in Bos- 
ton, a select meeting of the leading federalists in New England, to con- 
sider and recommend the measures necessary to form a system of govern- 
ment for the northern states, and that Alexander Hamilton, of New 
York, had consented to attend that meeting." And he says farther, that 
the gentlemen who had informed him of the contemplated meeting, told 
him at the next session of congress, that the death of Mr. Hamilton had 
prevented the meeting, but the project was not and would not be 
abandoned. Mr. Plumer adds : 

" I owe it to you as well as to myself, to state explicitly, that in the 
session of congress in the winter of 1803 and 1804, 1 was myself in favor 
of forming a separate government in New England, and wrote several 
confidential letters to a few of my friends and correspondents recommend- 
ing the measure. But afterwards, upon maturely considering the sub- 
ject, I was fully convinced that my opinion in favor of separation, was the 
most erroneous that I ever formed upon political subjects. * * * When 
the same project was revived in 1808 and 1809, during the embargo and 
non-intercourse, and afterwards, during the war of 1812, I used every 
effort in my power, both privately and publicly, to defeat the attempt 
then made to establish a separate independent government in the north- 
ern states." 



456 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mr. Adams having said in his letter to the federalists, that " this plan 
had been so far matured that the proposal had been made to an indivi- 
dual to permit himself at the proper time to be placed at the head of 
the military movements which it was foreseen would be necessary 
for carrying it into execution;" and Mr. Plumer having named Mr. 
Hamilton as that individual, James A. Hamilton addressed Mr. Adams, 
inquiring whether he was in possession of any evidence of his father's 
having consented to attend the alleged meeting at Boston, or been con- 
cerned in a project to effect the dissolution of the union and the estab- 
lishment of a northern confederacy. 

In reply, Mr. Adams says he received his information, to the best of 
his recollection, from Uriah Tracy, then a senator from Connecticut, or 
from another member of congress who was present, both since deceased. 
And after the close of the session, being at New York, he was informed 
lay Rufus King, that a person had that day conversed with him and also 
with Mr. Hamilton's father, in favor of the project, but that both had 
disapproved of it. Mr. Adams expressed his belief in the statement of 
Mr. Plumer ; but from the information given him by Mr. King, he 
believed that, in consenting to attend the meeting, Mr. Hamilton's pur- 
pose was to dissuade the parties concerned from the undertaking. He 
also declared the belief, that the project had been continued or resumed 
until the time of the meeting of the Hartford convention, in 1814. 

On the appearance of this letter of Mr. Adams, Judge Gould, of Con- 
necticut, son-in-law of Mr. Tracy, addressed certain questions to James 
Hillhouse, co-senator with Mr. Tracy, and to the other surviving mem- 
bers of congress in 1803 and 1804, John Davenport, John Cotton Smith, 
S. Baldwin, B. Tallmadge, and Calvin Goddard, who were familiar and 
confidential friends of Mr. Tracy, and of the same political party ; and 
who declared in their answers to Judge Gould, that Mr. Tracy had never 
spoken to them of the alleged project; nor had they any reason to believe 
that such a project had ever existed. 

Judge Gould transmitted these letters to the New York Evening Post 
for publication, accompanied by a letter of his own to the editor, con- 
taining a caustic review of the disclosures of Mr. Adams. He says : " It 
is particularly worthy of observation, that Mr. Adams' disclosures against 
the federal party, in the form in which he has chosen to present them to 
the public, are, even if untrue, absolutely incapable of direct disproof or 
positive contradiction. This remark is equally applicable to all the 
statements which have been published on this subject, under his name or 
avowed sanction. * * * Thus, although he has implicated in his 
project an important, and as he represents it, a formidable portion of the 
federal party, yet as he has avoided, except in a single instance, (which 



- CHARGE OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 45? 

did not require it,) the mention of any one individual hy name, he has 
secured to himself the very convenient resource of exculpating, in detail^ 
every one whom it may be hazardous to accuse or prudent to conceal, 
while he repeats the accusation against them collectively. * * * 

" As regards Mr. Tracy, whom only of the whole federal party, Mr. 
Adams has vouchsafed to name, it may be proper to state, that he has 
now been in his grave for nearly twenty-two years. The ' other member 
of congress' who is alleged to have been present at one of the conversa- 
tions between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Adams, happens also to be dead, and 
is hitherto nameless. Whether there is any deep philosophy in Mr. 
Adams' apparent preference of dead and anonymous to living and known 
authority, which might confront him, I can not presume to determine. 
But as ' dead men,' according to the proverb, ' tell no tales,' so on the 
other hand, they can contradict none. 

" Mr. Tracy, it is well known, was a man of unusual tact and address, 
in all situations, and a most acute judge of the characters of men. He 
was also early and well acquainted with Mr. Adams, and was not igno- 
rant of the strength and obduracy of his personal resentments and anti- 
pathies. He knew, moreover, what many perhaps at that time did not — 
the terms on which Mr. Adams stood with Mr. Hamilton. The brilliant 
and exalted character of that great man had long been, to the house of 
Braintree, an object of deep jealousy and resentment. ' Under him,' 
Mr. Adams had felt his ' genius rebuked,' and of all mankind (not ex- 
cepting even Mr. Ames or Col. Pickering himself,) Mr. Hamilton was to 
Mr. Adams probably the most odious. In the hereditary and cherished 
antipathies of Mr. Adams, Mr. Hamilton, it is believed, had no rival. 
All this Mr. Tracy well knew ; and that a man like him, in the exercise 
of his understanding, should have hoped to obtain the accession of such 
a man as Mr. Adams to the ' project' of the federal leaders, by proposing 
a measure which he knew would he most revolting to Mr. Adayns' ichole 
soul ; that he should have proposed Mr. Hamilton as the leader of a 
great public e iterpnse to 3Ir. John Q. Adams, is, modestly speaking, 
something strange. It is a little singular, also, that Mr. Tracy should 
have made Mr. Adams the depository of so important a state secret, 
while his lips were absolutely sealed upon the subject to his long 
tried, best known, and most intimate political friends and associ- 
ates, whose accession to the project, if any such existed, must certainly 
have been contemplated by him. The survivors of the Connecticut 
delegation were not only his political, but his personal friends. He 
and they were uniformly advocates of one and the same political system 
With most of them from his youth, and with all of them, long before 
the year 1804, he was in habits of the freest and most confidential com- 



458 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

municatioi!. on all subjects connected with public affairs. And that he 
should so guardedly have concealed this same project from all those 
gentlemen, as not to give the slightest intimation of it to any one of 
them, while he divulged it so unreservedly to Mr. John Q. Adams, of 
Massachusetts, must be a little puzzling to ordinary understandings." 

Mr. Plumcr having been requested by James A. Hamilton, to give 
the name of the person who informed him of his father's connection with 
the project referred to in the letter of Mr. Plumer, replied on the 11th 
of April, 1829, saying that he had "made no charge or accusation 
against Gen. Hamilton;" he had simply stated that a member of con- 
gress, at the session of 1803-4, informed him that the general had con- 
sented to attend the meeting. He however declined giving the name of 
his informant : in relation to which Mr. Hamilton observes : 

" As this affair now stands, Mr. Adams may still consider himself 
entitled to the benefit of this witness, which he would undoubtedly lose, 
if a free examination were submitted to ; and aware how important it 
was to sustain Mr. Plumer's credibility, Mr. Adams has endorsed his 
statement, and tendered him a certificate of respectability. * # * • 
The credibility of the associate witness must be sustained, regardless of 
the reputation and honor of the accused ; the charge of treason must be 
fixed somewhere, and the stamp of infamy, if possible, made indelible. 
This mighty project to dismember the union, seems only to be known 
to John Q. Adams and William Plumer ; the late president resorting 
to the dead to bear him testimony, while the former governor of New 
Hampshire dare not trust the living or the dead. In 1804, Mr. Adams, 
by his own admission, knew that Gen. Hamilton advocated the union ; 
in 1828, in his reply to the Boston federalists, he asserts that he was 
fixed on as the military leader to carry the ]}lan of disunion into execu- 
tion; and on the Gth of March, 1829, he most graciously affects to be- 
lieve that Gen. Hamilton entertained no treasonable or disloyal viewy." 

Mr. Hamilton accompanies his letter to the Evening Post with the 
declarations of nine members of the congress of 1803-4, .ntimate friends 
and associates of Mr. Plumer, disclaiming all knowledge of any sugges- 
tion made at that time, and avowing their disbelief that Gen. Hamilton 
gave any countenance to a separation of the states, or consented to at- 
tend a meeting for that purpose. 



ANOTHER. ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UN.ON 459 



CHAPTER XXXV. 

ANOTHER ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 

Almost simultaneously with the Giles and Adams controversy, and 
the publication of the letter of Mr. Jeiferson and Mr. Adams' own state- 
ment in relation to the alleged designs of disunion, and the establish- 
ment of a northern confederacy, an "important development" was an- 
nounced in the southern papers disclosing the incipient steps to have 
been taken by leading southerners in an abortive attempt to sever their 
political counection with the government. 

In October succeeding the passage of the tariff of 1828, which pro- 
duced such excitement at the south, a writer, under the signature of 
" Union," in a South Carolina paper, propounded to the members of 
congress from that state, the following questions, which, he stated, " if 
answered in the negative, might have a tendency to change the opinions 
of at least a portion of the people of the state as respected the nature of 
the opposition to the tariff, inculcated by a few of the Jacksonites of ' 
South Carolina." 

" 1st. Was there not a meeting of the delegation of this state held in 
Washington city, in the house of one of our senators, a few nights after 
the passage of this tariff law, the object of which was (as it was said) to 
consult upon measures best to be adopted and pursued as it regards this 
law? 

" 2d. At this meeting, were there not one or more members deputed 
to wait upon and consult with the respective delegations from the southern 
states, and to obtain, if possible, their cooperation ? Did this deputa- 
tion not undertake the mission, and totally fail in the object for which 
it was appointed? If it did, was it not then proposed by one or more 
leading members of the assembly, that the whole of the members as- 
sembled should immediately abandon their seats in congress, return 
home, and thereby end all further political connection with the govern- 
ment ? ■ 

" 3d. Was this proposition not abandoned by the meeting, in conse- 
quence of one or more of the prudent members objecting to take upon 
themselves the burden of the great responsibility, which would have 
been the consequence of such a step ? 

" Lastly. Was the night consultation not ended by a majority of the 
members finally determining, that, although they would await the ad- 
journment of congress, yet that, upon their arrival home, they would 



mO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

each visit their constituents generally, and among them make ever}^ 
effort to inculcate such doctrines and principles as would induce the 
people of the states to agree to and advocate a separation of the states ?" 

To the allegations implied iu these interrogatories, Mr. Hayne, the 
senator in whose house the meeting was said to have been held, made a 
positive denial. He said in his reply : " It is true, that, during the last 
session of congress, consultations were held among the members of the 
South Carolina delegation on the subject of the tariff. Such consulta- 
tions have, as I believe, been usual iu all cases affecting, in a peculiar 
degree, the interests of particular states ; and the members of this state 
would, in my opinion, have been wanting in their duty if they had not 
most earnestly and anxiously taken into consideration, on the passage 
of the tariff law, whether any thing remained to be done, by them in 
their representative capacity in relation to that matter. Such, I aver, 
was the sole object of a meeting held at my house in Washington, im- 
mediately after the passage of that law — a meeting rendered indispen- 
sably necessary, by a question which had been discussed among some of 
the southern members, (but which I think did not originate with any 
member of our delegation,) viz : whether a protest against the law, to 
be signed by all the members from the anti-tariff states, to be entered 
■>n the journals of the two houses of congress, and transmitted to the 
executives of the several states, might not be an expedient measure. 
The subject of such a protest was fully discussed without being brought 
to any conclusion, further than that a free interchange of opinions in 
relation to it should take place among the representatives of the anti- 
tariff states ; the final result of which was the abandonment of the 
scheme by common consent, as one not only of doubtful policy, but con- 
cerning which there existed too great a difference of opinion to justify 
its adoption." 

On reading this denial on the part of Mr. Hayne, Thomas R. Mit- 
chell, a representative from the same state, who had made to some of 
his confidential constituents, statements in respect to the meeting refer- 
red to, which were impugned by the letter of Mr. Hayne, replied to the 
same, substantially confirming the implied allegations of the writer above 
mentioned. Addressing Mr. Hayne directly he says : 

" And will you deny, sir, that, after all the southern delegations ex- 
cept Georgia had positively refused to unite with us in such a protest 
as was thought effectual by you and others, that a proposition was made 
by one of your members, that we should formally secede from congress, 
return home, and say to our constituents, that our services were no 
longer of any use ? That when this proposition was made, it was imme- 
diately opposed by Col. Drayton, who at once declared that he would 



ANOTHER ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 4G! 

iiot concur, as the act thus performed would be unconstitutional, and 
would not be sanctioned by his constituents ? I can not, sir, be mis- 
taken in this statement. The proposition excited feelings too strong to 
be forgotten. I thought if it were adopted, that I should be placed in 
the most trying of all situations. To remain alone at Washington, in 
opposition to the views of the whole delegation, would be assuming a 
fearful responsibility ; 'to shrink from that responsibility, and yield to 
their views in opposition to my own, would be contemptible weakness. 
Besides, what was to result from it ? What was to be the fate of the 
people whom we represented ? Imagination shuddered at the prospect. 
These were my feelings — these were the ideas which the proposition 
called forth. And I have never in my life been more relieved than when 
it was immediately put down by Col. Drayton. 

" Again, sir, will you deny that a proposition was made, that we 
should, on our return home, communicate by letter, or otherwise, with 
the principal men of our respective districts, on the subject of the tariff; 
explain to them the fatal effects on their trade and agriculture ; and its 
aggression on the sovereignty of the state? Further, that it was pro- 
posed, that we should, during the summer, communicate to each other, 
by letter, the state of feeling which we discovered in our respective dis- 
tricts? And finally, that the delegation should meet at Columbia in 
October or November, for the purpose of devising and naaturing some 
plan of action for the state governments ? Do you not remember that 
one gentleman (Mr. M'Duffie,) did say, that, in his opinion, there was 
no other remedy for the evil than a separation of the state from the 
union ; that temporizing measures would prove unavailing ; and that he, 
himself, was prepared to go all lengths ? And when it was remarked 
that his constituents might not approve such a measure, did he not reply 
with an exclamation, that he would not then represent them ? that he 
considered his services in congress as an obligation conferred on them ; 
and that, whenever they failed to support his great views on the affairs 
of the union, he would abandon them ? To this, did you not reply, that 
others were as ready to make sacrifices as he could be ? 

"Further, when it was observed, that Mr. M'Duffie's plan was ill-ad- 
vised, because the United States' government would force the state to 
submission, (she, single-handed, not having the power to resist,) did you 
not ask, where were the means of the general government to coerce the 
state ? That the standing army was no more than a handful of men — 
nothing could be feared from it ? That, with regard to the militia, no 
southern militia, if called out by the president, would take arms against 
our people ; and that the northern militia would not be permitted by 
Virginia and North Carolina to pass through their territories for the 



462 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

purpose of subjecting South Carolina ? Finally, after all attempts to 
obtain a cooperation of the southern delegations had failed — after one 
of our most influential members (Mr. Senator Smith) had peremptorily 
refused to attend, and unanimity was not found to exist even among 
those who were present, was it not then that you proposed to abandon 
all the foregoing plans, lest any increase of excitement in South Caro- 
lina might prove injurious to the election of Gen. Jackson ? 

" On the adjournment of the meeting, I called on senator Smith, 
related what had transpired, and remarked, that the delegation had been 
saved by the wisdom and firmness of Col. Drayton. With regard to 
the views of yourself and others, I could say nothing. Having never 
respected either the principles or course of the Calhoun party, I was 
not in your confidence, and was therefore left to mere conjecture as to 
what your motives were, and what your ulterior projects might be In 
this public development I have not volunteered ; you have forced me 
to it." 

To this Col. Hayne rejoined in an attempt to disprove the statement 
of Mr. Mitchell, and introduced as testimony letters of several of the 
members of that state. It was, however, admitted and proved, that 
the question was discussed of presenting to the house a protest from the 
delegations of the anti-tariS" states : That it was proposed, that, when 
the delegates went home, they should by letter communicate to each 
other the feelings and sentiments of the people within their districts 
upon the subject of the tarifi"; and that they should endeavor to pre- 
vent the expression of public opinion on this subject until after the 
election : That the delegation should assemble at Columbia, at the com- 
mencement of the session of the legislature, to give to the members of 
that body any information respecting the tarifi" that might be desired ; 
That Maj. Hamilton declared his purpose to go home, surrender his 
commission, and not return to congress, unless directed by his constitu- 
ents; from which purpose he was dissuaded by Col. Drayton : That the 
efi"ects of a dissolution of the union were discussed : That Maj. Hamil- 
ton said, if South Carolina should bo driven from the union by the 
restrictive policy, the government could not enforce it ; as the regular 
army was too small to create apprehensions, and Virginia and North 
Carolina would never permit northern militia to pass through their 
territories to reduce South Carolina to subjection. 

Although the testimony adduced by Col. Hayne, if correct, acquits 
the accused of the worst designs imputed to them ; yet, from the facts 
admitted, it was easy and natural for Mr. Mitchell to infer all he charged 
upon them ; and the more so from their having been, as Maj. Hamilton 
confessed, " under a very high degree of excitement at this new act of 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. 463 

injustice." Only a few years after, the right of secession and of nulli- 
fication was the current and almost universal doctrine in South Carolina, 
in which these gentlemen, it is presumed, all concurred, and of which 
they determined to give a practical exemplification by a forcible resist- 
ance to the laws of the union. 



CHAPTER XXXVI. 

RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. 

In September, 1826, an event occurred which gave rise to a new 
political party. William Morgan, of Batavia, Genesee county, New 
York, having written for publication a work alleged to contain a dis- 
closure of the secrets of free-masonry, and which was about to be 
issued from the press of David C. Miller, was apprehended under coloi 
of a criminal process, and conveyed to Canandaigua, in the county of 
Ontario, where, upon examination before a magistrate, he was discharged. 
He was subsequently arrested, on the same day, upon a demand against 
him; a judgment was obtained; and he was confined in the jail of the 
county. On the evening of the 12th of September, persons who had 
been concerned in his seizure and confinement, discharged the debt, and 
caused his liberation. On leaving the jail, he was forcibly taken, carried 
in a close carriage to the Niagara frontier, where he was last seen. 

Several persons concerned in the outrage upon Morgan were arrested, 
and indicted, pleaded guilty to the indictments, and were imprisoned in 
the county jail at Canandaigua. A great excitement soon prevailed 
throughout the western part of the state. 

At the next session of the legislature, petitions relating to the abduc- 
tion of Morgan were presented, and referred to a select committee of 
the assembly; and a reward of $1,000 was off"ered by Gov. Clinton for 
the discovery of Morgan, if alive; and if murdered, $2,000 for the dis- 
covery of the ofi"ender or oflfonders ; and a free pardon to any accomplice 
or cooperator who should make the discovery. 

The committee of the legislature stated in their report, that the 
petitions set forth, that, after an examination before the magistrate at 
Canandaigua, Morgan was discharged. He was again immediately 
arrested upon a demand against him, and a judgment obtained, on which 
he was imprisoned in the county jail at that place. His friends dis- 
charged the debt on which he had been coaimittcd, and he was liberated. 



464 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

On leaving the jail he was seized, forced into a carriage, and conveyed 
to the Niagara frontier, where, as some of the petitioners alleged, he was 
murdered on the night of the 14th of September: and all expressed the 
belief, that the conspiracy extended through several of the western 
counties, and was the result of a previously concerted plan. 

As the courts of a single county were deemed inadequate to the 
emergency, the interposition of the legislature was asked to procure a 
full development of the plot. The committee reported a resolution re- 
questing the governor to offer a reward of $5,000 for the discovery of 
Morgan, if living, and a like sum for the murderer or murderers,, if 
dead ; and another for the appointment of a joint committee of the two 
houses, to visit the counties from which and through which Morgan had 
been taken, to inquire into the facts and circumstances connected with 
the outrage, and to report their proceedings to the next legislature. 

In the autumn of 1827, the body of a man was found on the shore of 
lake Ontario, which, from the testimony given on the coroner's inquest, 
the jury unanimously agreed, was the body of William Morgan. Upon 
a second examination, however, held some time afterward, a jury decided 
the body to be that of Timothy Monro, who had been upsei in a skiff 
and lost in the mouth of Niagara river in September. His clothing, un- 
seen by his widow and intimate friends since his death, were so minutely 
described, as to leave no doubt on the minds of the jurors. It was also 
testified by a physician, that the body, appearing to be only in the first 
stages of decomposition, could not be that of a person more than a year 
after drowning. 

Bills of indictment were found against several persons who had par- 
ticipated in the abduction ; two of whom, in 1829, were convicted and 
sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail, one for two years and four 
months, the other for one year and three months. The former was the 
sheriff of Niagara county, who as a witness on the trial of the latter, 
testified, that he had been apprised several days previously of the coming 
of Morgan, and had been requested to prepare a cell for him in the 
Niagara county jail at Lockport. It was proved that Morgan was taken 
through Rochester, and along the ridge road to Lewiston, being conveyed, 
blind-folded in a covered carriage, which was kept closed. From Lewis- 
ton he was taken in another carriage to the ferry near fort Niagara. 
Witness and four others crossed with him into Canada, in the night ; 
their object being to get Morgan away from Miller into the interior of 
Canada, and place him on a farm. The expected preparation not having 
been made for his reception, he was brought back to this side of the 
river, to wait a few days, and was put into the magazine of the fort ; 
since which the witness had not seen him. 



RISE AND PROGkESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. 465 

The publication of Morgan's book was followed by that of others, 
claiming to be true revelations of the secrets of masonry ; and many 
free masons seceded from the institution, and confirmed the published 
statements of its character and ceremonies, as well as the oaths and ob- 
ligations of its members, some of which were inconsistent with their 
civil duties. It is not strange, therefore, that, with the suspicion pre- 
viously existing in the minds of a large portion of the uninitiated 
against the order, this outrage upon the person of Morgan, which was 
believed to be in accordance with the laws of the institution, should soon 
raise against it a powerful opposition. Those who believed the members 
held their civil obligations subordinate to their obligations to each other, 
considered free masons unfit to hold civil offices. 

Under the influence of this opinion, strengthened as it had been by the 
difficulty, in a few cases, of bringing criminals to justice where courts, 
sherifis and witnesses were masons, the anti-masons soon began to unite 
to prevent the election of masons to town and county offices. Probably 
their object, as yet, contemplated merely the procuring of the nomina- 
tion of persons not masons, by the existing political parties. A general 
convention was held at Le Roy, in March, 1 828, in which twelve coun- 
ties were represented. Its object appears to have been to direct the 
public attention to what was deemed a dangerous institution, and to 
excite against it a general opposition. It recommended a state conven- 
tion to be held at Utica in August. The nomination of separate, inde- 
pendent candidates for state officers, was not, it is said, contemplated in 
calling the state convention. But the Adams party, then calling them- 
selves " national republicans," in the hope of securing the support of the 
anti-masons, anticipated the convention of the latter, by calling their 
convention at an earlier day, and nominating men who were not masons. 
Smith Thompson, then a justice of the supreme court of the United 
States, was nominated for governor, and Francis Granger, a favorite of 
the anti-masons, for lieutenant governor. 

Perceiving in this act of the national republicans no manifestation 
against masonry, the anti-masons did not respond to the nominations ] 
but at their convention declared it expedient " wholly to disregard the 
two great political parties, and to noir inate anti-masonic candidates for 
governor and lieutenant governor." Mr. Granger was accordingly nomi- 
nated for governor, and John Crary for lieutenant governor, both of 
whom had taken an active part in procuring the aid of the legislature in 
bringing to justice the Morgan conspirators ; the former being a member 
of the assembly, and the latter a senator, 

Mr. Granger, however, declined the nomination, and accepted that of 
lieutenant governor tendered him by the national republicans, to the 

30 



466 THE AMERICAN STATESIIAN. 

great displeasure of the anti-masons ; who supplied the place of his name 
with that of Solomon Southwick, who, though once a mason, had lately 
cooperated with the anti-masons in their attempts to overthrow the insti- 
tution. In the selection of Mr. Southwick, the great body of the anti- 
masons did not concur, he having been nominated by a small convention 
at Le Roy. With few exceptions, however, they gave him their supporl 
at the election. 

The election resulted in the choice of Mr. Van Buren, the Jackson 
candidate for governor, and Enos T. Throop for lieutenant governor. 
Mr. Van Buren received 136,794 votes; Judge Thompson, 106,444; 
and Mr. Southwick, 33,345. 

From this time, a regular organization as a statje anti-masonic party 
xay be considered as having existence, embracing in its composition 
original Clintonians, (Mr. Clinton having united with the friends of 
Gen, Jackson,) and bucktails, as the party opposed to Mr. Clinton was 
called. As regarded national politics they had not yet made any de- 
claration ; a majority, however, were national republicans and friendly to 
Mr. Adams. Gen. Jackson being a mason, it was easy to foresee that 
they would eventually unite with the friends of the former, if with 
either of the two national parties. 

The anti-masons prosecuted their object with such zeal and energy, 
as soon to place them in advance of the national republicans. They held 
a state convention in February, 1829 ; and at the election in November, 
they obtained majorities in the fourteen western counties, and in the 
county of Washington ; and the senator of the 8th senate district was 
elected by an unprecedented majority. In February, 1830, another state 
convention was held in Albany, at which they decided to call a national 
convention, and a state conventioii to nominate candidates for governor 
and lieutenant-governor. At the convention, held at Utica in August, 
they declared their political principles, which were substantially the 
same as those of the national republicans. Mr. Granger, having re- 
gained their confidence and esteem, was nominated for governor, and 
Samuel Stevens for lieutenant governor. No nomination was made by 
the national republican party ; and had this party, with entire unanimity, 
voted for Granger and Stevens, they would probably have been elected. 
A number sufficient to defeat the anti-masonic candidates, having a 
stronger attachment to masonry than to their political principles, joined 
the Jackson party, and gave the election to Mr. Throop, by a majority 
of 8,481 votes. 

The cause of anti-masonry soon extended to other states. It acquired 
its greatest strength in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsyl- 
vania, and Ohio. In some districts of these states, the anti-masoniff 



BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS AND THE SIX MILITIA MEN. 467 

party had obtained the ascendency, and in . a considerable number of 
them, it became the most formidable rival of the dominant party. The 
sequel of its history will be given in a succeeding chapter. 



CHAPTER XXXVII. 

BATTLE OP NEW ORLEANS, AND THE SIX MILITIA MEN. FUGITIVE SLAVES 

AND ABOLITION. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. ANTI-TARIFF PROTESTS. — ; 

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. PUBLIC LANDS IN INDIANA. 

On the 8th of January, 1828, Mr. Hamilton, of South Carolina, 
moved instructions to the committee on the library to inquire into the 
expediency of having an historical picture of the battle of New Orleans 
painted, and placed in one of the panels of the rotunda, and of engaging 
Washington Allston to design and finish the work. During the discus- 
sion of the resolution, which continued two days, sundry amendments 
were offered, principally by its opponents, with a view to embarrass its 
passage. The amendments proposed to add pictures of certain battles 
of the revolution, and naval battles during the late war with Great Bri- 
tain. The question was taken at the close of the second day's debate, 
and decided in the negative : ayes, 98; noes, 103. 

The resolution having been intended, as was presumed, for party effect, 
Mr. Sloane, of Ohio, from the other party, on the 11th of January, 1828, 
moved a resolution calling on the secretary of war to furnish the house 
with a copy of the proceedings of a court martial at Mobile, in Decem- 
ber, 1814, by which six of the Tennessee militia men had been tried, 
convicted of insubordination and mutiny, and condemned to be shot ; 
which sentence was carried into effect by order of Gren. Jackson. The 
regolution, after having been so amended as to embrace a great variety of 
other papers, letters, &c., relating to the subject, was adopted on the 
16th of January ; and on the 11 th of February, the committee on mili- 
tary affairs, (Mr. Hamilton, chairman,) made a report on the subject 
approving the proceedings of the court, and justifying the execution of 
the militia men. The report and accompanying documents were ordered 
to be printed, 108 to 69. 

This affair of the militia men proved detrimental rather than availing 
to the administration party. Handbills giving unfavorable representations 
of the trial and execution of these men, " illustrated" with wood engrav- 
ings of six coffins were extensively circulated. But the investigation 



468 THE AMEEICAN STATESMAN. 

having resulted in the exculpation of Gen. Jackson, the " cofiBn hand- 
bills," as they were called, became rather an efifective weapon in the hands 
of his friends against the inventors. 

An attempt was made during Mr. Adams' administration to effect an 
arrangement with Great Britain for the surrender of fugitive slaves 
taking refuge in the Canadian provinces. By a resolution of the house 
of representatives, May 10, 1828, the president was requested to open a 
negotiation with the British government for this purpose. Ou the 15th 
of December, in compliance with a resolution of the 8th, the president 
transmitted to the house the correspondence between the secretary of 
state and Mr. Gallatin, our minister at London, and Mr. Barbour, his 
successor. The following is an extract from the instructions of Mr. 
Clay to Mr. Gallatin : 

"If it be urged that Great Britain would make, in agreeing to the 
proposed stipulation, a concession without an equivalent, there being no 
corresponding class of persons in her North American continental domin- 
ions, you will reply : 

"1st. That there is a similar class in the British West Indies, and, 
although the instances are not numerous, some have occurred of their 
escape, or being brought, contrary to law, into the United States. 

" 2dly. That Great Britain would probably obtain an advantage over 
us in the reciprocal restoration of military and maritime deserters, which 
would compensate any that wo might secure over her in the practical 
operation of an article for the mutual delivery of fugitives from labor. 

" 3dly. At all events, the disposition to cultivate good neighborhood, 
which such an article would imply, could not fail to find a compensation 
in that, or in some other way, in the already immense and still increasing 
intercourse between the two countries. The states of Virginia and Ken- 
tucky are particularly anxious on this subject. The general assembly of 
the latter has repeatedly invoked the interposition of the government of 
the United States with Great Britain You will, therefore, press th^ 
matter whilst there exists any prospect of your obtaining a satisfactory 
arrangement of it. Perhaps the British government, whilst they refuse 
to come under any obligation by treaty, might be willing to give direc- 
tions to the colonial authorities to afford facilities for the recovery of 
fugitives from labor ; or, if they should not be disposed to disturb such 
as have heretofore taken refuge in Upper Canada, they might be willing 
to interdict the entry of any others in future." 

These considerations were not deemed sufficiently weighty to induce 
the English government to make the desired concession. 

A petition from the citizens of the District of Columbia, was presented 
to congress at the session of 1827-28, praying for the prospective 



FUGITIVE SLAVES AND ABOLITION. 469 

abolition of slavery in the district, and for the repeal of those lawp which 
authorize the selling of supposed runaways for their prison fees or main- 
tenance. The petitioners declare slavery among them, to be " an evil 
of serious magnitude, which greatly impairs the prosperity and happi- 
ness of the district, and to cast the reproach of inconsistency upon the 
free institutions established among us." They represent the domestic 
slave trade at the seat of the national government as " scarcely less dis- 
graceful in its character, and even more demoralizing in its influence," 
than the foreign slave trade, which is declared piracy, and punishable 
with death. " Husbands and wives are separated ; children are taken 
from their parents without regard to the ties of nature, and the most 
endearing bonds of affection are broken for ever." 

It was mentioned also as a special grievance, that " some who were 
entitled to freedom, had been sold into unconditional slavery." And 
they gave the case of a colored man who had been taken up as a runaway 
slave, imprisoned, and advertised ; and no one appearing to claim him, 
he was sold for life at public auction for the payment of his jail fees, and 
taken to the south. A stronger anti-slavery document has not in later 
years been presented to congress ; nor did it receive any more efficient 
action than similar petitions have since received. 

The memorable presidential contest between Adams and Jackson 
terminated in November, 1828, in the triumphant election of the latter. 
It was one of no ordinary character. It was unusually animated and 
acrimonious. Mr. Adams' election had been effected by a " coalition " 
which many sincerely believed to have been dishonorable ; and this belief 
undoubtedly incited them to more than ordinary activity in their early 
formed purpose to rebuke the coalitionists. The opposition to tho 
reelection of Mr. Adams commenced early. The overthrow of his 
administration was predetermined before his inauguration. The opposi- 
tion so early begun, was maintained throughout without abatement. The 
personal character of the candidates was assailed in a manner unjustifi- 
able and perhaps unprecedented. The private life of Mr. Adams was 
correct beyond that of most public men. Many of his official acts, how- 
ever, were subjected to the most rigid scrutiny, with the view of 
deducing from them evidence of dishonesty and corruption. His oppo- 
nent was, on this point, more vulnerable. His earlier life had been 
marked with faults, and even vices. These though long since condemned 
by himself, and abandoned, were ungenerously held up to public view. 
Moral character, however, has loo often far less weight with the mass of 
the electors than supposed obligations to party. 

But whatever disadvantage Gen. Jackson may have suffered in this 
respect, was far more than counterbalanced by actual advantag,es which 



170 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

he possessed over his opponent. Besides the benefit which inured to hini 
from the suspicions of unfairness in the election of Mr. Adams, the fact 
of his having received a plurality of the electoral votes at the preceding 
election, was itself considered by many as establishing a claim to their 
support. The electoral votes of Jackson and Crawford were 140; those 
of Adams and Clay, 121. It was apparent, therefore, that by an entire 
union of the strength of the two former, Gen. Jackson would be elected. 
Though neither was popular at the south, Mr. Adams had incurred in an 
eminent degree, the resentment of Georgia, in a controversy with that state 
respecting the Indian difficulties : and several of the neighboring states 
sympathized with Georgia in that affair. Mr. Adams, too, was known 
to be in favor of a more libei'al construction of the constitution than 
southern statesmen generally ; and although Gen. Jackson had taken 
high ground in favor of protection and internal improvement, they had 
no reason to apprehend under his administration an aggravation of the 
evils of that policy ; but they rather hoped for some mitigation of them. 
And yet another advantage enjoyed by Gen. Jackson in this contest, 
was the support which he received from those whose claims to executive 
favor had not been sufficiently appreciated by Mr. Adams. Although 
Gen. Jackson, as is generally believed, held out no inducements to the 
disappointed expectants of office under Mr. Adams, it is both natural 
and usual for this class of politicians to change their party relations 
when it can be done without hazard, or with a moderate expectation of 
personal advantage. 

Of the whole number of electoral votes for president. Gen. Jackson 
received 178; and Mr. Adams, 83. Mr. Calhoun was reelected vice- 
president by 171 votes, (the 7 Georgia electors having voted for Wil- 
liam Smith, of South Carolina, and Richard Rush received 83. 

The 2d session of the 20th congress commenced on the 1st of Decem- 
ber, 1828, and closed with the constitutional term of Mr. Adams' 

... • 

administration on the 3d of March, 1829. 

At this session, protests against the tariff of the preceding session 
from the legislatures of the states of Georgia and South Carolina, were 
presented to the senate. The Georgia protest pronounced that act, en- 
titled, "An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on 
imports," " deceptive in its title, fraudulent in its pretexts, oppressive 
in its exactions, partial and unjust in its operations, unconstitutional in its 
well known objects, ruinous to commerce and agriculture — to secure a 
hateful monopoly to a combination of importunate manufacturers ;" and, 
in language similar to that employed in her correspondence with the gene- 
ral government on a former occasion, and hinting toward nullification, 
concludes thus : 



ANTI-TARIFF PROTESTS. 47 

" Demanding the repeal of an act which has already disturbed the 
anion, and endangered the public tranquillity, weakened the confidence 
of whole states in the federal government, and diminished the affection 
of large masses of the people to the union itself, and (demanding) the 
abandonment of the degrading system which considers the people as in- 
-japable of wisely directing their own enterprise ; which sets up the ser- 
vants of the people in congress as the exclusive judges of what pursuits 
are most advantageous and suitable for those by whom they were elected ; 
the state of Georgia expects that, in perpetual testimony thereof, the de- 
liberate and solemn expression of her opinion will be carefully preserved 
among the archives of the senate ; and in justification of her character 
to the present generation and to posterity, if, unfortunately, congress, 
disregarding the protest, and continuing to pervert powers granted for 
clearly defined and well understood purposes, to effectuate objects never 
intended by the great parties by whom the constitution was framed, to 
be intrusted to the controlling guardianship of the federal government, 
should render necessary measures of a defensive character, for the pro- 
tection of the people of the state, and the vindication of the constitution 
of the United States." 

Mr. Berrien, having stated the purport of the protest, said it was now 
delivered to be deposited in the archives of the federal government, to 
serve whenever occasion might require it, as an authentic testimony of the 
solemn dissent of one of the sovereign states of this union, from the act 
therein protested against, as an infraction of the constitutional compact 
by which she is united to the other members of the confederacy. Mr. 
Berrien expressed his own attachment and that of Georgia, to the federal 
compact, and begged gentlemen not to believe that this act was one of 
temporary excitement. He adverted to the efficiency with which this 
government had sustained itself during so many trials, and expressed an 
opinion, that it was yet to undergo a more fearful trial in questions 
affecting our internal peace, an event which, he hoped, might be far off. 
On his motion, the letter of the governor and protest were laid on the 
table, and printed. 

The South Carolina protest was presented by Mr. Smith, senator from 
that state. It assigns at length the reasons for protesting against the 
system of protecting duties, which it pronounces " unconstitutional, op- 
pressive and unjust:" and, lest an apparent acquiescence in the system 
should be drawn into precedent, the legislature, in the name of the com- 
monwealth, claim to enter their protest '.n the journals of the senate. 
Mr. Smith adverted to the various restrictive measures of the general 
government — tariffs, embargo, and non-intercourse acts — under which his 
state had suffered. He stated in the course of his remarks, that " he be- 



472 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

lieved there was not a man in the country not interested in manufactures, 
who would not be glad to see all the goods used in the country smuggled 
into it. He believed there was not a virtuous man who would inform. 
We had heretofore been celebrated as a moral people ; but these were 
the effects of your tariff system." 

Mr. Hayne also complained of the effects of the policy of the general 
government upon the south ; discussed the question of the constitution- 
ality of the protecting system ; and undertook to prove that Mr. Jeffer- 
son had been unjustly claimed as a friend to that principle, referring to 
his letter of December, 1825, to Mr. Giles, to prove that he considered 
the system unconstitutional. The protest was ordered to be printed. 

A bill was introduced by Mr. Dickerson, of New Jersey, December 13, 
1826, " to provide for the distribution of a part of the revenues of the 
United States among the several states of the union." Of the ten mil- 
lions of dollars appropriated annually to the sinking fund, by the act of 
1817, the bill proposed to distribute five millions annually for four years 
among the several states in the ratio of direct taxation. It was intended 
by the mover as an experiment, which, if successful, would be followed 
by an adoption of its principle in a more permanent form. The objects 
of the bill were alleged to be, to provide funds, in all the states, for pur- 
poses of education and internal improvement; and, by transferring to 
the state legislatures the application of a part of the surplus funds, to 
relieve congress from a formidable weight of legislation, and to prevent a 
concentration of power i-n the general government never intended to be 
vested there by the framers of the constitution. 

Mr. Dickerson supported his bill by an elaborate speech, m which he 
urged the vast advantage of this sum to the states, without any disadvan- 
tage to the general government. So rapidly had the public debt been 
diminished, and so ample would still be the means of payment, that no 
inconvenience would be experienced by the withdrawal of five millions 
annually. He believed that a gradual distribution of the surplus in the 
manner proposed, would produce a greater good than would be done by a 
more speedy extinguishment of the public debt, and the distribution at 
once of a large surplus suddenly accumulated. The bill was, on motion 
of Mr. Benton, laid on the table. The proposition seems to have found 
little favor with the senate. 

At the session of 1828 and 1829, Mr. Dickerson again brought this 
proposition before the senate, but with no better success. He advocated 
the bill on the same grounds as when it was introduced two years before. 
A large portion of the revenues must soon be appropriated to objects of 
internal improvements, either by the general government, or by the 
states. To make roads and canals, congress had not a constitutional 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. 473 

righl, evon with the consent of the states. In favor of this opinion, he 
referred to the veto of Madison, in 1817, to the hill proposing to set 
apart certain funds for constructing roads and canals and for improving 
water courses in the states, with the assent of the states. Mr. Madison 
said : " If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to im- 
prove the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident 
thereto, he not possessed by congress, the assent of the states, as pro- 
vided for in the hill, can not confer the power." By the passage of this 
bill, the constitutional objection would be avoided ; and the states could 
make a more just and beneficial application of the money than could be 
done by the general government. 

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, was of the opinion that, when the public 
debt was paid, it would be better, instead of continuing to raise the rev- 
enue, to leave in the pockets of the citizens the surplus which it was pro- 
posed to divide among the states. He would therefore reduce the duties 
on imports. He objected to the project, also, that it would encourage 
the states to rely for support on the general government. And farther, 
congress had no right to raise a revenue for the purpose of distribut- 
ing it. 

Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, said, those were mistaken who sup 
posed this plan would settle the distracting question of internal improve- 
ment. Calls for money for this purpose would continue. He thought 
it better to purchase up and extinguish the public debt, even before it 
became due. He believed the whole of the national debt could be paid 
in 1833, and before the close of the nest administration; and that the 
great and good man who was about to wield the destinies of this coun- 
try would not desire to earn a greater honor than to have it inscribed 
on his tomb-stone, that he had extinguished the national debt. 

Mr. Benton hoped the example of England, the mother, would not be 
lost upon the United States, her child. About a hundred years ago, 
England enjoyed a long peace under the timid administration of Sir 
Robert Walpole, in which the public debt, then small, might be paid 
off. At his instance, half a million sterling was annually diverted from 
the sinking fund, under the supposition that the money, not being want- 
ed by the public creditors, could be used more beneficially for other pur- 
poses. But the debt grew rapidly ; and the country was soon over- 
whelmed with taxes. He joined in the wish of the senator from South 
Carolina, that the debt might be paid off under the ensuing administra- 
tion. Such a consummation would confer new fame upon Gen. Jackson. 

The debate was continued by Mef^srs. Dickerson, Hayne, Johnson, of 
Louisiana, Benton, Kane, Webster, Berrien, and M'Lane. The bill 
seems to have been advocated by no other senator than the mover. It 



474 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

was subsequently, on motion of Mr. Dickerson, referred to a select torn- 
inittee for modification, but no report was made upon it. 

On the lOth of February, 1829, Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, presented 
to the senate, a resolution of the legislature of that state, declaring, that 
the state, " being a sovereign, free, and independent state, has the exclu- 
sive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the unappropriated lands 
within her acknowledged boundaries;" and that this right " was reserved 
for her by the state of Virginia in the deed of cession of the north- 
western territory to the United States, being confirmed and established 
by the articles of confederacy and the constitution of the United States." 
The resolution also instructed their senators and representatives in con- 
gress to use their exertions to induce the United States to acknowledge 
this vested right of the state, and to place her upon an equal footing 
with the original states. 

The claim of the state to the public lands within her boundaries, Mr. 
Hendricks said, was based upon the stipulation in the deed, by which 
Virginia ceded her western lands to the United States, that that portion 
now forming the state of Indiana, should, when admitted into the union, 
be received as a free, sovereign, and independent state, and on an equal 
footing with the original states, in all respects whatever. These lands, 
as well as those ceded by other original states to the general govern- 
ment, were ceded to and received by the United States for the express 
purpose of paying the national debt ; but this, it was contended, did not 
interfere with the construction given by that state to the deed of cession. 
A long time was expected to intervene between that period and the ad- 
mission of the state, and thirty-two years had actually intervened, in 
which time the lands, or a part of them, might have been sold, and the 
debt extinguished. It could not, he said, have been the intention of 
congress to interfere with those lands after they should have fallen withiu 
the boundaries of states admitted into the union : the article of con- 
federation declaring, that no " state should be deprived of territory for 
the benefit of the United States." 

But if this view of the subject was erroneous, it was nevertheless im- 
politic and inexpedient for the general government to continue to assert 
its claim to the unappropriated lands of one-third of the states. While 
the public lands remain in the hands of the federal government, the new 
states will not, can not be satisfied ; because congress was, and must 
ever be, incompetent to legislate understandingly on the subject. The 
legislatures of the states were much better acquainted with the qualities 
of the soil, the necessities of the people, and were better judges of the 
measures adapted to promote the interests of their citizens. 

Mr Noble differed with his colleague. Congress, he believed, would 



PUBLIC LANDS IN INDIANA. 475 

never relinquisli these lands to the states in whioh they were, and to 
hold out the idea that they would, was injurious to the prosperity of the 
new states. It would be unjust to deprive the old states of their share 
in the public lands. It was through the protection and support they 
had received from the old states, that the new states were indebted for 
their prosperity. On his motion, the resolution was referred to the 
committee on public lands. 

In the house of representatives, a select committee was appointed at 
this session, to whom was referred a resolution relative to the expe- 
diency of distributing annually, amongst the states, all moneys arising 
from the sales of the public lands. The committee made their report 
on the 25th of February, 1829. The report contains a history of the 
public lands, and states the quantity to which the government still held 
the right of soil, to be more than 1,000 millions of acres. The com- 
mittee say : 

" The public lands as now held by the United States, may be classed 
under the three following heads : 

" 1st. Those which were ceded by several of the old states to the 
confederated government, and the present government of the United 
States. 

" 2dly. Those which were acquired by purchase from France by the 
treaty of Paris of the 30th of April, 1803, (Louisiana). 

" 3dly. Those purchased of Spain by the treaty of Washington, of 
the 22d of February, 1819, (Florida, and the territory west of the Mis- 
Eissippi)." 

A division of the public lands amongst the states had been suggested 
to the committee. This, they believed, would be an injurious measure. 
It would be impossible so to locate the several divisions as to attach to 
them an equal value. The states would have different systems of sales. 
Struggles would take place in congress for measures to advance the value 
of the possessions of some of the locations over that of the others. 
Serious collisions would occur. Speculation, fraud, and corruption 
would be attempted in the state legislatures. 

To avoid these evils, and to protect the rights of the community, the 
committee proposed to give the states a direct interest in the income 
arising from the sale of the public lands. This measure would check 
further concessions, and prevent the selfish from availing themselves of 
the advantage presented by some great crisis of public affairs to obtain 
propitiatory concessions from rival parties injurious to the general in- 
terest. As a guard to the purity of legislation, and as a just and" equit- 
able application of the value of the lands, the committee recommend the 
policy of distributing the nett proceeds of all sales of the picblic lands 



476 THE AMERICAN STATESJ.IAN. 

among the several states^ in the ratio of their population. Among the 
benefits of this plan would be the adoption of a system of rigid economy 
in relation to the expenditures of the land offices ; and no private or 
other claim would be sanctioned, but as its justice should be clearly 
ascertained. 

A few days before the close of the session and of the presidential term 
of Mr. Adams, Mr. Hamilton, from the select committee on retrench- 
ment, made an additional report, as follows : " That, having presented 
to the house various bills and resolutions consequent on such abuses, 
legislative and administrative, to which they thought a corrective ought 
to be applied, (upon which bills and resolutions, the shortness of the 
session, and the interposition of bills of a public nature having priority 
on the calendar, have precluded the action of congress,) they deem it 
important, before the close of their labors, that the house should dis- 
tinctly express its opinion on the following cardinal subjects of public 
economy : 

" 1. Be it therefore resolved, That as no free people should be burdened 
with unnecessary taxation, it is expedient to pay the public debt with 
all convenient dispatch. 

" 2. That this house has a right to expect that the executive will sub- 
mit to congress at its next session, a comprehensive scheme of retrench- 
ment, which shall extend to the lopping off of all useless offices, and to 
securing a more effective accountability in those which are retained. 

" 3. That a retrenchment of the fixed as well as contingent expendi- 
tures of congress, is indispensably necessary, more especially the last 
which are essentially liable to abuse." 

Mr. Hamilton addressed the house on the resolutions until the ex- 
piration of the hour alloi-ted to morning business. No action upon the 
resolutions was taken. 



CHAPTEK XXXYIII. 

lUAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. REMOVALS ^ROM OFFICE. 

MEETING OF CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 

Andrew Jackson was inaugurated president of the United States on 
the 4th day of March, 1829. At half-past eleven o'clock, he entered 
the senate chamber, attended by the marshal of the district and the com- 



rNAXTGURATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 477 

mittee of arrangements. The cliief justice of the United States and the 
associate judges were seated on the right of the president's chair, and 
the foreign ministers in their official costumes on the left. At about 
twelve o'clock, in the presence of the senate and house of representa- 
tives, and an immense concourse, he delivered his inaugural address ; at 
the conclusion of which, the oath to support the constitution was adminis- 
tered to him by chief justice Marshalh 

The principles upon which his administration was to be conducted 
were briefly and appropriately stated. He should keep steadily in view 
the limitations as well as the extent of the executive power ; observe a 
proper respect for the rights of the states, taking care not to confound 
their reserved powers with those granted to the confederacy ; observe &. 
strict and faithful economy in the management of the public revenue, in 
order to facilitate the extinguishment of the public debt, and to counter- 
act a tendency to public and private profligacy, which a profuse expen- 
diture is apt to engender ; recommended equal favor to agriculture, com- 
merce, and manufactures in selecting subjects of impost ; and commended 
internal improvement and the diffusion of knowledge, so far as they 
could be promoted constitutionally by the federal government. He 
would not seek to enlarge the standing army ; but would gradually 
increase the navy, and strengthen the national militia ; and he would 
" observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits, a just and liberal 
policy ; and give that humane and considerate attention to their rights 
and their wants which are consistent with the habits of our government 
and the feelings of our people." 

Another duty which he prescribed to himself, and which he seems to 
have regarded as peculiarly important, is alluded to as follows : " The 
recent demonstration of public sentiment inscribes on the list of execu- 
tive duties, in characters too legible to be overlooked, the task of reform ; 
which will require, particularly, the correction of those abuses that have 
brought the patronage of the federal government into conflict with the 
freedom of elections, and the counteraction of those causes which have 
disturbed the rightful course of appointment, and have placed or con- 
tinued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands." 

The names of the persons selected to constitute the new cabinet, were 
the following : Martin Van Buren, of New York, secretary of state ; 
Samuel D. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury ; John 
H. Eaton, of Tennessee, secretary of war; John Branch, of North Caro- 
lina, secretary of the navy; John McPherson Berrien, of Georgia, 
attorney general; and William T. Barry, of Kentucky, postmaster- 
general. Prior to this time, the postmaster-general was not included in 
the cabinet, John M'Lean, of Ohio, the incumbent of that office, was 
appointed an associate justice of the supreme court. 



478 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

For a development of the general policy of tlie new aumiuistration, 
the public mind awaited the appearance of the first annual message. 
The executive appointments, however, soon discovered the adoption of 
a new rule iu the exercise of this power, and was taken by many as an 
explanation of the nature of the " reform" alluded to in the inaugural 
address, as " inscribed on the list of executive duties." The senate 
continued in session until the 17th of March to act upon nominations 
made by the executive. Among the persons appointed, were a con- 
siderable number who were nominated to supply vacancies caused by 
removal of incumbents. During the recess of the senate, removals were 
very numerous. District marshals, and attorneys ; surveyors, inspec- 
tors, and collectors of ports ; naval officers ; appraisers of goods ; receiv- 
ers of public moneys ; auditors, controllers and clerks in the execu- 
tive departments, were displaced, and political adherents appointed in 
their places. But the most numerous class of officers removed, was that 
of postmasters, of whom nearly five hundred were removed during the 
first year of the administration. 

This principle of removal and appointment was of course made the 
subject of general complaint and severe animadversion by the party thua 
proscribed. It revived, to some extent, the question of the right of the 
executive to displace public officers, or to fill vacancies that do not 
" happen,'^ in the recess of the senate ; it being considered by many of 
the opposition a perversion of the word happen in the constitution to 
apply it to a vacancy caused by removal except for official misbehavior 
or incompetency. But conceding the practice to be constitutional, it was 
held to bo an unjustifiable exercise of power. The proscription of men 
for an honest difi'erence of sentiment not at all afi"ecting the faithful dis- 
charge of a public duty, was inimical to freedom of opinion and politi- 
cal integrity. It was, moreover, a practice without precedent in any 
preceding administration. The friends of the administration claimed 
for the executive the right to exercise the power of removal at his dis- 
cretion ; and as he was intrusted with the execution of the laws, it was 
also eminently proper that he should be permitted to select for his assist- 
ants, those for whose acts he was responsible. This right of selection 
necessarily implied that of the unrestricted substitution of one person 
for another. 

There were those, however, who, though they readily conceded to the 
president the power of removal in accordance with the construction of 
the constitution as sanctioned by the practice of the national legislature, 
nevertheless disapproved its exercise to the extent to which it had been 
carried, especially in the removal of postmasters. Niles, the editor of 
the " Weekly Register," ard a veteran republican, commented on this 
subject, thus : 



REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 479 

" Political considerations, except those of the broadest and most noblo 
nature, (in the spread of intelligence,) never entered into the institution 
of the post-office department. It becomes contaminated when reduced 
to the dominion of party ; and confidence, once lost, is slowly regained. 
Its operations should be as unsuspected of party management as the purity 
of a vestal ; and while expecting that many changes would be made by 
the new administration in the officers superintending other branches of 
the public business, we strongly hoped that the post-office department 
would have remained unsubjected to any private or political feeling of 
that administration. But that hope was not long indulged. The 
arrangement of the postmaster-general into " the cabinet" with after 
events, which transferred Mr. M'Lean to the bench of the supreme court, 
and introduced Mr. Barry to the direction of the establishment, £lled 
us with something like alarm, and caused us to recollect events long 
past, — when a vice-president of the United States, (Mr. Jefferson,) not 
only declined the superscription of his own letters, but often sent them 
inclosed to persons other than those for whom they were intended, by 
previous arrangement ; and, when at home in Virginia, sometimes caused 
them to be dropped into a post-office a little removed from his own ; 
when it was believed that the names of the subscribers to a certain news- 
paper, (the Aurora, by Bache or Duane,) at particular places, were offi- 
cially returned to ' head quarters' for political purposes. Whether the 
suspicions of Mr. Jefferson and the party that supported him were well 
founded or not, the simple fact that many of the deputy postmasters 
were violent partisans, and some had been put into office as such, justi- 
fied them and required this caution. * * * Deeply interested in the 
business of the post-office establishment, and knowing the effects that 
must follow a loss of confidence in its management, we were exceedingly 
anxious that honest and capable, industrious and obliging postmasters 
should not be dismissed for opinion's sake. If there were abuses of the 
privileges allowed to postmasters on the one side, they wei'e not wanting 
on the other. What was improper in one party can not have been right 
in its opponent. And there is also this' important difference: not one 
of the postmasters recently in office had been appointed to supersede 
another because of political opinion, so far as we ever heard ; and even 
if had been so, it was to have been expected that they were rather against 
than favorable to the last administration; Mr. M'Lean being understood 
as a decided friend of the election of Gen. Jackson. Yet we do not 
believe he suffered his private feelings to enter into the performance of 
his public duties. But now, persons are dismissed without the preferring 
of charges against them affecting their moral character or personal 
standing." 



480 THE AMEPaCAN STATESMAN. 

"We do not propose to discuss, in this place, the justice or propriety 
di this new rule of appointment introduced into the administration of 
the government by Gen. Jackson, and since that time invariably prac- 
ticed by every dominant party ; nor to inquire into the reasons for a 
practice so directly contrary to the rule prescribed by himself to one of 
his late predecessors. He had also in the distribution of executive 
patronage, disappointed the public expectation by an unusually liberal 
dispensation to members of congress — a practice ■which he had, in his 
letter to the legislature of Tennessee, declared to tend inevitably to 
corruption. As might be expected, his opponents availed themselves 
of whatever advantage might be gained from an exposure of the incon- 
sistency of his profession and practice. It may here be observed, how- 
ever, that no political principle or measure deliberately adopted as a 
party expedient, will ever be wanting in apologists and defenders ; and 
however repugnant to the feelings of an unsophisticated politician may 
be the idea of proscription for opinion's sake, it has become so familiar 
as to have lost its deformity in the view of the mass of politicians, and 
long since ceased to afford the basis of an effective electioneering argu- 
ment against any party practicing it. 

The number of persons removed from office by each of the several 
presidents, had been as follows : By Gen. Washington, in eight years, 
nine, one a defaulter ; by John Adams, in four years, ten, one a 
defaulter \ by Jefferson, in eight years, thirty-nine ; by Mr. Madison, 
in eight years. Jive, three defaulters ; by Mr. Monroe, in eight 3'ears 
nine, of which six were for cause ; by John Quincy Adams, in four 
years, two, both for cause. 

The appointment by Mr. Adams, of certain members of congress to 
office, having been made the occasion of a call upon him " for a list of 
appointments given by the executive to members of congress, since the 
foundation of the government" — the object of the information being 
alleged to be to enable congress to remove an evil said to exist and to 
be growing — the president communicated the information. The list 
transmitted embraced the names of members appointed during their 
official terms and "for six months thereafter," as required by the resolu- 
tion, and is stated in Niles' Register of June 20, 1S29, to contain, in 
the aggregate, 117, as follows : Appointed by Washington, 10 ; by John 
Adams, 13; by Jefferson, 25; by Madison, 29; by Monroe, 35; by 
John Quincy Adams, in thirteen months, to the time of the report, 5 ; 
to wit, Henry Clay, secretary of state ; James Barbour, secretary of 
war; Rufus King, minister to Great Britain; Joel R, Poinsett, minis- 
ter to Mexico; and Lot Clark, postmaster, Norwich, N. Y. During 
the first three months, the number of members appointed by president 



MEETING OF CONGRESS. 481 

Jackson, was 12 ; including the whole cabinet, except Mr. Barry • 
foreign ministers, Louis M'Lane, to England ; William C. Rives to 
France; Thomas P. Moore, to Colombia; George "W. Owen, collector 
at Mobile ; John Chandler, collector at Portland ; Jeromus Johnson 
appraiser of goods at New York; John Gr. Stower, of New York, 
United States district-attorney for Florida. 

The 1st session of the 21st congress, as also the first under president 
Jackson's administration, commenced the 7th of December, 1829. In 
both branches there were majorities in favor of the administration. In 
the preceding congress, the majority of 6 in the senate, had been 
reduced to 4 ; while that of 17 in the house, had been increased to 59, 
as was estimated. 

The message of the president was delivered the next day. Besides 
the ordinary topics embraced in a review of our internal' affairs and our 
foreign relations, several measures, not usually presented to congress, 
were introduced into the message. He suggested an amendment of the 
constitution, bringing the election of president and vice-president 
directly to the people ; restricting the service of the chief magistrate to 
a single term of four or six years ; prohibiting the appointment of mem- 
bers by the president in whose election they may have been officially 
concerned ; and suggesting the limitation to four years of all offices 
which now exceeded that term. 

The attention of congress was also invited to an inquirj-- into the con- 
dition of the government with a view to ascertain what offices could be 
dispensed with, what expenses retrenched, and what improvements might 
be made in the organization of its various parts to secure the responsi- 
bility of public agents. 

AmoDg the subjects brought to the notice of congress, was that of the 
recharteriug of the bank of the United States. It was thus alluded to : 
" The charter of the bank of the United States expires in 1836, and its 
stockholders will most probably apply for a renewal of their privileges. 
In order to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy in a measure 
involving such important principles and such deep pecuniary interests, 
I feel that I can not in justice to the parties interested, too soon pre- 
sent it to the deliberate consideration of the legislature and the people. 
Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this 
bank are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow-citizens ; and 
it must be admitted by all, that it has failed in the great end of estab- 
lishing a uniform and sound currency. 

" Under these circumstances, if such an institution is essential to the 
fiscal operations of the government, I submit to the wisdom of the 
cgislature, whether a national one, founded upon the credit of the gov- 

31 



482 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ernment and its revenues, might not be devised, wliich Vfould avoid all 
constitutional difficulties, and at the same time secure all the advantages 
to thQ government and country tlirit were expected to result from the 
present' bank." 

The subject of our Indian affairs, though not a new one, was treated 
in a manner indicating a contemplated change in the policy of the gov- 
ernment in relation to the Indian tribes — a change which, if not actually 
demanded by Georgia and Alabama, was known to be in accordance 
with their wishes. The president says : " A portion of the southern 
tribes, having mingled much with the whites, and made some progress 
in the arts of civilized life, have lately attempted to erect an indepen- 
dent government within the limits of Georgia and Alabama. These 
states, claiming to be the only sovereigns within their territories, ex- 
tended their laWs over the Indians, which induced the latter to call 
upon the United States for protection." 

Deeming the erection of such government repugnant to that provision 
of the constitution which declares, that " no new state shall be formed 
or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state," without the con- 
sent of its legislature, he had informed the Indians, that their attempt 
to establish an independent government would not be countenanced, and 
had advised them to emigrate beyond the Mississippi, or .submit to the 
laws of those states. He recommended that territory should be guar- 
antied to them beyond the limits of any state or territory now formed, 
where they might enjoy a government of their own choice, and where 
" the benevolent might endeavor to teach them the arts of civilization." 
And they were to be informed that, if they remained within the limits 
df the states, they must be subject to their laws. 

Presuming that, after the extinction of the public debt, a large sur- 
plus would accumulate in the treasury, before the public revenues would, 
by a satisfactory adjustment of the tariff, be reduced to a sum required 
merely for the current expenses of the government, the disposition of 
this surplus presented a subject for the serious deliberation of congress. 
Appropriations for purposes of internal improvement being regarded by 
many of the people as infractions of the constitution, he proposed, in 
order to avoid this as well as other objections, and as " the most safe, 
just, and federal disposition which could be made of this surplus rev- 
enue, its apportionment among the several states, according to their 
ratio of representation ; " and if this measure should be liable to the 
same objection, it would be expedient to propose to the states an amend- 
ment of the constitution authorizing it. 

The ground to be assumed by president Jackson in relation to the 
tariff and internal improvements, was the subject of much speculation 



president's message. 4g3S 

His votes on these questions in the senate of the United States, had 
indeed placed him among the advocates of a liberal construction of the 
constitution. He had voted during his short service in that body, for a 
large number of bills appropriating money for purposes of internal im- 
provement. He had cooperated with ultra protectionists in the enact- 
ment of the tariflF of 1824 ; and he had but recently, in his answer to the 
legislature of Indiana, given assurances of his undiminished attachment 
to these principles. But his supporters in the southern states consisted 
chiefly of the former friends of Mr. Crawford, who were uncompromis- 
ing opponents of the policy and principles with which Gen. Jackson had 
been identified. How to dispose of these questions without seriously 
affecting his standing with the one or the other of these branches of his 
party, was considered a difficult matter. His course in relation to in- 
ternal improvements is hinted in the preceding paragraph respecting the 
disposition of the surplus revenue. His views on the subject of the 
tariff are given more at length. 

The operation of the tariff, he said, had not been so injurious to 
agriculture and commerce, or so beneficial to manufactures as had been 
anticipated. Importations of foreign goods had not been sensibly dimin- 
ished, while domestic competition had increased the production beyond 
the demand for home consumption, and the manufacturers had been sub- 
jected to partial loss by the reduction of prices. Unrestricted inter- 
course between nations was desirable ; but the selfish legislation of other 
nations must be counteracted by our own. Some provisions of the 
tariff required modification ; and the rule to be observed in graduating 
the duties upon foreign products was that which would place our own in 
fair competition with them ; and there were controlling inducements to 
advance a step beyond this point in regard to articles of primary neces- 
sity in time of war. The delicacy of this operation required the observ- 
ance of the utmost caution. Frequent legislation in regard to any 
branch of industry, affecting its value, and transferring its capital to 
new channels, was productive of hazardous speculation and loss. In 
deliberating on these subjects, local feelings and prejudices should yield 
to the determination to promote the great interests of the whole. They 
should not be connected with the party conflicts of the day. The differ- 
ent sections of the country should unite in diminishing any burden of 
which either might justly complain. 

The agricultural interest, from its connection with every other, and 
from its superior importance, deserved particular attention. It was 
principally as manufactures and commerce tended to increase the value 
of agricultural productions, that they deserved the fostering care of 
government. 



484 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

On tbe whole, the subject was skilfully treated. No sentiment was 
expressed to which any southern opponent of the tariff would be likely 
to take exception ; and although some of the friends of the tariff pro- 
fessed to discover in the general tenor of the language of this part of 
the message indications of a change of position on this question, it is not 
easy to perceive how any sentence could, by fair construction, be regarded 
as hostile to the protective policy. 

The power of the president to remove public ofl&cers except for cause, 
was discussed at this session. Resolutions on the subject were offered 
in the senate by Mr. Holmes, of Maine, and by Mr. Barton, of Mis- 
souri ; and in the house by Mr. Chilton, of Kentucky. The objects 
embraced in the different resolutions presented, were to ascertain the 
number of removals made by the president, and the reasons for the 
same; and the exercise of the power in removing officers when not 
required for the faithful execution of the laws, and of filling the vacan- 
cies, during the recess of the senate, was declared to be against the 
public interest, the rights of the state, and the spirit of the constitution. 
In the senate, the question of the executive power of removal and 
appointment, was discussed, both in secret session, and in open debate. 
Of the speeches reported, those of Messrs. Holmes and Barton in favor 
of the resolutions are the principal, and of those in opposition, that of 
Mr. Bibb, of Kentucky. Several of the speeches made in secret session 
do not appear in the " congressional debates." 

Mr. Burton referred to the 77th number of the " Federalist," to 
sustain the exposition for which he contended. It was there said : " The 
consent of that body, (the senate,) would be necessary to displace as 
well as to appoint. A change of the chief magistrate, therefore, would 
not occasion so violent or so general a revolution in the offices of the 
government, as might be expected if he were the sole disposer of the 
offices." The same writer, in reference to the objection that the senate 
might influence the president, and assume the control of the government, 
says : " If by influencing the president be meant restraining him, this is 
precisely what must have been intended. And it has been shown that 
this restraint would be salutary, at the same time that it would not be 
such as to destroy a single advantage to be looked for from the uncon- 
trolled agency of that magistrate. The right of nomination would pro- 
duce all the good without the ill." 

Appended to this number of the Federalist, is the following note, in the 
later editions : " This construction has since been rejected by the legis- 
lature ; and it is now settled iu practice that the power of displacing be- 
longs exclusively to the president." Mr. Barton said : " This note ought 
to be expunged as calculated to mislead students and weak cabinets. It 



POAVER OF REMOVAL. 485 

is not true, in point of fact, that the legislature has rejected this con- 
Btruction ; nor true, in point of law, that the senate can renounce an iota 
of their restraining power tliat belongs to their organization, and chiefly 
distinguishes our checked and restrained executive from one of arbitrary 
will. The whole idea of the annotator was taken from the laws respect- 
ing the assistants of the president, to perform the duties prescribed by 
him as under the act of 1789, and not applicable to the officers of the 
public, or of the law, to perform duties prescribed by the laws of the 
land. The correctness of Hamilton, (the writer of the article,) and the 
error of the annotator and his disciples of the majority, can be demon- 
strated, if there be truth in logic and common sense. The argument 
stands thus : Without the concurrent power of the senate in matters of 
appointing, (as you admit in your report of 1826,) the president becomes 
a monarch." 

Mr. Barton admitted the right of the president to remove an officer 
for official delinquency or disability, and to put a fit person in his place. 
This was in conformity to his obligation to see the laws faithfully exe- 
cuted. But the doctrine of an unrestricted power of removal was a de- 
parture from the exposition and understanding of the constitution by the 
founders of the government. It enabled the president to use the offices 
of the republic as bribes or weapons, and rendered public officers depend- 
ent upon him for official existence. It put it into his power to wield the 
whole official force of his country — nay, the purse and the sword of his coun- 
try — against its liberties. To pervert the power to the purpose of pun- 
ishing freemen for their opinions or votes, or purchase supporters, or 
reward office hunters, was a great offense, a gross violation of our consti- 
tutional rights, by a president. He adverted to the inconsistency of the 
majority. They had said that the president was responsible to the peo- 
ple at the end of his term ; and they could correct the abuse. Yet the 
opponents of the resolutions refused to let the people know for what 
causes the power had been exerted ! 

Mr. Bibb, in reply, referred to the act of July, 1789, establishing the 
department of foreign affairs, since called the " department of state," the 
principal officer of which was authorized to appoint a chief clerk, " who, 
whenever the said principal officer shall be removed from, office by the 
president of the United States,'''' &c. A similar provision, he said, was 
in the law organizing the departments of war and the navy. Those three 
acts conceded the power of the president to remove the principal officer. 
Mr. Bibb read a list of removals, by presidents Washington, Adams and 
Jefferson. From the time of Washington's first removal to the present 
time, not an instance had occurred in which the senate, as a body, had 
asserted the right to ask the cause of 'emoval, or to exercise an appel- 



486 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

late or revisory power over the president's decision. The attempt, in 
1814, to ask the cause of the removal of Gideon Granger from the office 
of postmaster-grneral, was rejected by the senate. 

Mr. B. also cited a decision of the supreme court, made in 1803 
" When an officer is removable at the will of the executive, the circum- 
stance which completes his appointment is of no concern, because the act 
is at any time revocable. By the constitution of the United States, the 
president is invested with certain political powers, in the exercise of 
which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only in his po- 
litical character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the perform- 
ance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act 
by his authority, aijd in conformit}'^ with his orders. In such cases, their 
acts are his acts j * * * and there exists and can exist, no power to 
control that discretion." 

He also examined this question upon the principles of the constitution, 
A feeble executive produced a feeble execution of the laws ; which was, 
in effect, a bad execution of the laws. Energy in the executive was es- 
,sential to a good government. This had been provided by the constitu- 
tion. In a government looking to our intercourse with foreign nations 
to preserve peace ; direct the energies of the nation in war ; spreading 
over such an extent of territory, an energetic executive was more neces- 
sary than in one of the confederated states. At the time of making the 
constitution, there were but two tenures of office, the one during good 
behavior, the other during pleasure. "When, therefore, the constitution 
required the president to nominate, appoint, and commission all officers, 
and to commission the judges during good behavior, it followed clearly that 
he should commission no other officers during good behavior, but to hold 
during the pleasure of the president. 

Mr. B. presented several other considerations to enforce this interpre- 
tation. He said this tenure of office at the will of the president was 
well adapted, (1.) To preserve due subordination in the officers to the ex- 
ecutive head ; (2.) To preserve that unity of purpose and action necessary 
for decision, energy and dispatch ; (3.) To defend the executive against 
the encroachments of the coordinate departments, as well as against 
anarchy ; (4.) To maintain that due weight and influence to the presi- 
dent which was intended by the constitution, in giving him a qualified 
negative upon the proceedings of congress, and in assigning to him the 
duty to recommend to congress such measures as he shall judge necessary 
and expedient. 

The resolution, being that introduced by Mr. Barton, was on motion 
of Mr. Grundy, laid on the table. Mr. Holmes' resolutions, after a long 
speech by himself were, on motion of Mr. Grundy, indefinitely postponed. 



FOOT S RESOLUTIONS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 487 



CHAPTER XXXIX. 

foot's RESOLUTIONS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. GREAT DEBATE IN THE 

SENATE. 

At this session, (1830,) occurred what has been termed, " the great 
debate in the senate." The occasion, rather than the subject of it, was 
a resolution offered by Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, " That the committee 
on the public lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limit- 
ing, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands to such lands only 
as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are subject to entry at the 
minimum price. And also whether the office of surveyor-general may 
not be abolished without detriment to the public interest." 

We have said this resolution was the occasion of the debate ; because, 
except in the earliest stage of it, among the unusual number of topics 
embraced in the discussion, the resolution itself received but a secondary 
consideration. 

The resolution was offered on the 29th of December, 1829. It was 
taken up the next day for consideration, and, after a short debate, was 
laid on the table. The discussion was resumed a few days afterward, 
and continued until the 21st of May. The object of the mover of the 
resolution was to confine the sales of the public lands to those already 
surveyed and brought into market ; there being more than 72,000,000 
acres which remained unsold at the minimum price of $1 25 per acre. 
The resolution was opposed on the ground that the object contemplated 
by it would check emigration to the new states and territories, and limit 
their settlement. The eastern states were charged with a design to im- 
pede the settlement of the western states ; one object of which was 
alleged to be, to keep the people in the east to work in the manufactories. 
Hostility on the part of the eastern states, to the new states of the west, 
had been repeatedly manifested. The resolution was vigorously opposed 
by the western senators, Messrs. Benton, of Missouri, and Kane and 
Noble of Illinois, especially Mr. Benton, who referred to the early policy 
of the government; the tendency and design of which had been to retard 
the settlement and prosperity of the new states. 

Mr. Foot repelled the imputation of hostility to the west ; said, if the 
resolution should be adopted, he should move to add the words, " pro- 
priety of making donations to actual settlers." 

The senators whose names are most familiarly associated with this de- 
bate, are Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, and Mr. Webster, of Massa- 
chusetts ; the former having twice spoken at length, and been replied to 



488 THE AMEE.ICAN S1ATESMAN. 

bj Mr. Webster. The second reply is the speech which has so often 
been the subject of high encomium, and which has probably contributed 
more than any other single effort to the fame of that distinguished orator 
and statesman. Besides these, the other prominent participants in the 
debate, were : Messrs. Benton, Grundy, Kane, Livingston, Rowan, 
Smith, of South Carolina, and Woodbury, all, it is believed, friends of 
the administration, and all, perhaps, except Mr. Smith, concurring 
mainly in the views of Mr. Hayne on the subject of the public lands ; 
and Messrs. Barton, Clayton, Foot, Holmes, Johnson, of Louisiana, 
Sprague, and Noble, opponents of the administration ; the last named 
senator, however, being opposed to the resolution. 

Mr. Hayne said, that, in relation to the proper policy of the govern- 
ment concerning the disposal of the public lands, there were two parties, 
holding opposite opinions. The one supposed the policy heretofore pur- 
sued had been just and liberal to the new states ; the other, embracing 
the entire west, thought the government had treated them in the spirit 
of a taskmaster — that its policy had been illiberal and selfish. It had 
sold out, froin time to time, certain portions for the highest prices that 
could be obtained ; and until within a few years, on long credits. The 
result of such a course was to keep a country for a long time under a 
heavy load of debt. Other nations, in planting colonies, had given free 
grants of land. He had not yet formed a fixed or settled opinion on 
the subject. But he suggested that, after the public debt should have 
been paid, (for which the lands were pledged,) it might be sound policy 
to relinquish 'them to the states in which they were, on terms which 
should compensate the government for the cost of the original purchase, 
and for other expenses incurred on their account. He thought the states 
should in due season be invested with the control of all the lands within 
their respective limits. 

Mr. H. distrusted the policy of creating a great national treasury, 
whether to be derived from the public lands or from any other source, 
and of distributing the excess among the states. It would be a fund for 
corruption — fatal to the duration of our institutions, and to the sover- 
eignty and independence of the states. He believed the very life of our 
system was the independence of the states, and no evil was more to be 
deprecated, than the consolidation of the government. 

Mr. Webster maintained that the policy of the government had been 
liberal to the new states. He considered the analogy referred to by Mr. 
Hayne to be unjust ; the cases were not similar. The North American 
colonists either fled from Europe to avoid persecution, or came hither at 
their own charges, as private adventurers. The western lands and the 
protection of the settlers against the Indians, had led to the expenditure 



GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 4S9 

of both blood and treasure. The extinguishment of the Indian title had 
cost many millions. Nothing had been spared which a just sense of their 
necessities required. He adverted to the growth and prosperity of these 
states since the Indians were conquered by Wayne, which was the result 
of the care and protection of the government. He objected to throwing 
great portions of the lauds, at low prices, into the hands of private spec- 
ulation. 

In replying to the remark of Mr. Hayne, that he wanted no perma- 
nent sources of income — that a fixed revenue only consolidated the gov- 
ernment and corrupted the people — Mr. W. said, he was aware such sen- 
timents were elsewhere held ; but he had not expected to hear them ut- 
tered there. " Consolidation !-j-that perpetual cry of terror and delu- 
sion — consolidation ! When gentlemen speak of the effects of a common 
fund as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they mean ? Do 
they mean, or can they mean, any thing more than that the union of the 
states will be strengthened by whatever furnishes inducements to the 
people of the states to hold together ? This is the sense in which the 
framers of the constitution use the word consolidation, and in which 
sense I adopt and cherish it. They tell us in the letter submitting the 
constitution to the consideration of the country, that, 'in" all our delib- 
erations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears 
to us the greflest interest of every true American — the consolidation of 
our union — in which is involved our prosperity, liberty, safety ; perhaps 
our national existence.' # * * This, sir, is G-en. Washington's con- 
solidation. This is the true constitutional consolidation." 

Mr. W. defended the East against the charge of hostility to the West. 
The tariff had been mentioned as an instance of selfish policy, and 
designed to prevent western emigration. He repelled the charge, and 
the cause assigned for it. New England was not the author of the tariff. 
The tariff of 1816 was more a southern than an eastern measure. And 
in 1824, there were, in each of a majority of the western states, and even 
in Virginia, more votes in favor of the tariff of that year, than in Mas- 
sachusetts. It had been forced upon New England. 

From the time the cessions of the lands were made to congress, no 
portion of the country had acted with more liberality or intelligence on 
the subject of the western lands than New England. Provision was to 
be made for the government of the country and for disposing of the ter- 
ritory. The soil must be granted and settled. How was it to be done ? 
Two systems presented themselves ; the one a northern and the other 
a southern mode of conducting the sales. The northern was adopted ; it 
was that now in successful operation in the new states north-west of the 
Ohio. That which was rejected was the system of warrants, surveys, 



490 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

entry and location, which prevailed south of the Ohio, and had shingled 
over the country with conflicting titles and claims, and led ^o speculation 
and litigation. The former was the New England system — that of sur- 
veying lauds before issuing title papers, and of inserting accurate descrip- 
tions of metes and bounds. At the foundation of the constitution of 
these new states, was the ordinance of 1787, drawn up by Nathan Dane, 
of Massachusetts. It had impressed upon the soil an incapacity to bear 
up any other than free men. Mr. W. suggested this as the cause that had 
given to these states a more rapid growth and prosperity than those south 
of the Ohio. And this great measure, he said, had been carried by the 
north, and by the north alone. Individuals elsewhere had favored it; 
but as a measure, it was supported entirely by northern votes. The 
Cumberland road and other western improvements had uniformly received 
the votes of New England. 

In vindication of his own course, he read a few extracts from s» debate 
in the house of representatives, in 1825, on the subject of the western 
road ; Mr. W. being then a member of that body. A distinguished mem- 
ber from the south (Mr. M'Dufifie) had said in that debate, that emigra- 
tion to the west needed no stimulus, but rather a check. Every induce- 
ment had been held out to the people to settle in the west, until the east- 
ern population had become sparse. If any object was worthy the atten- 
tion of the government, it was a plan which should limit the sale of the 
public lands. To which he (Mr. W.) had replied, that it was not his wish 
so to hasten the sales of the lauds as to throw them into the hands of 
purchasers who would sell again ; but he could not concur with the gen- 
tleman from South Carolina, in wishing to restrain the laboring classes 
in the eastern states from going to any part of our territory. He was in 
favor of letting population take its own course. If any of his constitu- 
ents wished to settle on the Kansas, or the Arkansas, let them go, and 
be happier, if they could. Mr.' W. said he had read these extracts to 
vindicate his state from unfounded charges and imputations on her public 
character and conduct. 

After this stage of the discussion, many foreign subjects were intro- 
duced into the debate, which was continued until the 2d of April. Hav- 
ing been permitted to slumber until near the close of the session, it was 
revived the 20th of May, and finally brought to a close the next day, with- 
out any decisive action upon the resolution. Among the incidental and 
irrelevant topics drawn into the debate, were slavery, state rights and 
nullification, the judicial power of the union. New England federalism, 
&c. It abounded with facts and illustrations relating to the government, 
which impart to it not a little interest and value as a political history. 
But the most prominent subject was that of the relative powers of the 



GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 491 

state and federal goverumeuts, in the discussion of wbicli was asserted 
the constitutional right of a state to disobey any law which the state 
authorities may deem unconstitutional — the right of nullification. 

The principal speakers in this debate, which was almost strictly of a 
party character were Messrs. Benton, Hayne, Kane, Rowau, Grundy, 
Livingston, and Smith, of South Carolina, supporters of the administra- 
tion ; and Messrs. Webster, Sprague, Holmes, Noble, Foot, Clayton, 
Johnson, of Louisiana, and Robbins, of the opposition. The former were 
opposed to the resolution, except Mr. Smith, who, on this subject, dis- 
sented from his colleague, Mr. Hayne ; the latter, it is believed, Mr. 
Noble excepted, were all in favor of the inquiry proposed in the resolu- 
tion. Although Messrs. Hayne and Webster are generally regarded as 
the leading combatants in this celebrated controversy, Mr. Benton occu- 
pied a much greater portion of time than any other senator. 

Mr. Webster, at the close of the speech above noticed, was imme- 
diately followed by Mr. Benton in the commencement of a speech which 
was continued for an hour the next day, (January 2 1 ,) when he yielded 
•the floor to Mr. Hayne, and did not resume it until after the discussion 
between those two gentlemen was over. Necessity forbids our giving 
even the most condensed sketch of the remarks of speakers on the various 
topics embraced in this very discursive debate — or party combat, as it 
may be appropriately called. Many important questions, however, were 
discussed, among which the most prominent was that of the constitutional 
powers of the national and state governments, in other words, the 7iatv.re 
of the union. 

Mr. Hayne claimed for a state the right not only to disregard a law 
of congress which it may deem unconstitutional, but to determine for 
itself, the unconstitutionality of an act, as well as the mode and meas- 
ure of redress ; and founded this claim upon the authority of the Vir- 
ginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 1799. Mr. Webster, on the 
other hand, contended for some power in the general government to 
decide ultimately upon the constitutionality of laws ; and that the doc- 
trine that each state might at discretion violate any law which her own 
authorities should pronounce unconstitutional, would, if carried into 
practice, be fatal to the union. 

Mr. Hayne, in defense of his doctrine, said: " The senator from Mas- 
sachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to call the South Carolina 
doctrine, has attempted to throw ridicule upon the idea that a state has 
any constitutional remedy, by the exercise of its sovereign authority, 
against a ' gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the constitution.' 
He calls it an idle or a ridiculous notion, or something to that effect, and 
added, it would make the union ' ^ mere rope of sand.' Now, sir, as 



49? THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the gentleman lias not condescended to enter into any examination of the 
question, and has been satisfied with throwing the weight of his author- 
ity into the scale, I do not deem it necessary to do more than to throw 
into the opposite scale the authority on which South Carolina relies, and 
there, for the present, I am willing to leave the controversy. The South 
Carolina doctrine, that is to say, the doctrine contained in an exposition 
reported by a committee of the legislalure in December, 1828, and pub- 
lished by their authority, is the good old republican doctrine of '98 ; the 
doctrine of the celebrated ' Virginia resolutions' of that year, and of 
* Madison's report,' of '99. It will be recollected that the legislature of 
Virginia, in December, '98, took into consideration the alien and sedition 
laws, then considered by all republicans as a gross violation of the con- 
stitution of the United States, and on that day passed among others, the 
following resolution : 

" The general asseinbly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, 
that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the 
compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and 
intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid 
than tliey are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact ; and 
that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other 
powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto 
have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the pro- 
gress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the 
authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. " 

Mr. H. also quoted from Mr. Madison's report the following : " It 
appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded on common 
sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of 
compacts, that, when resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the 
authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful 
judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued 
or violated. The constitution of the United States was formed by the 
sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds 
to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the constitu- 
tion, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, 
then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sov- 
ereign capacity, it follows, of necessity, that there can be no tribunal, 
above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact 
made by them be violated ; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, 
they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may 
be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." 

From the Kentucky resolutions, responding to those of Virginia, and 
penned by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. H. quoted the following declaration : — 



ftREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 493 

" That the government created by this compact was not made the ex- 
clusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself 
since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution the 
measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among 
parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge 
for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress." 

The legislature of Kentucky, in 1799, reaffirmed their resolutions of 
the preceding year. From their proceedings, Mr. H. read, in support 
of his theory, the following declarations : " That the principle and con- 
struction contended for by several of the state legislatures, that the 
general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers 
delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism ; since the discretion of 
those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be 
the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that 
instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable 
right to judge of its infraction ; and, that a nullification, by those sov- 
ereignties, of all unauthorized acts, done under the color of that instru- 
ment, is the rightful remedy." 

Mr. Webster said he had much respect for the constitutional opinions 
of Mr. Madison ; but possibly a wrong construction might have been 
given to the resolution to which Mr. Madison had given his sanction. 
That resolution declared, that, in case of the dangerous exercise of 
powers not granted to the general government, the states might inter- 
pose to arrest the progress of the evih But how interpose ? Did it 
mean no more than that the people, in any mode of assembling, might 
resist usurpation ? No one would deny this. Nor would it be denied, 
that the people might, if they chose, throw off any government when it 
became oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better one. This was 
the right of revolution. But what the gentleman contended for, was, 
that it was constitutional for a state, in form of law, in virtue of its sov- 
ereign capacity, to interrupt the administration of the constitution it- 
self, in the hands of those who were chosen and sworn to administer it. 
[Appendix, Note E]. 

Mr. "W. admitted that unconstitutional laws were not binding. But 
the great question was, whose prerogative was it to decide whether n 
law was constitutional or not ? The proposition, that a state has a con- 
stitutional right to annul a law supposed to be unconstitutional, he de- 
nied. Under the constitution, there was no mode in which a state gov- 
ernment, as a member of the union, could interfere, and stop the pro- 
gress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under sxuy 
circumstances whatever. 

This led him to inquire into the origin of thegoverniaent, and the sourcu 



49'1 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

3f its power. Was it the creature of the state legislatures, or the crea- 
rure of the people ? " The doctrine for which the gentleman contends," 
said Mr. Webster, " leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only 
that the general government is the creature of the states, but that 
it is the creature of each of the states, severally ; so that each 
may assert the power, for itself, of determining whether it acts 
within the limits of its authority. It is the servant of four-and- 
twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet 
bound to obey all. This absurdity arises from a misconception as 
to the origin of this government in its true character. It is the people's 
constitution, the people's government; made for the people; made by 
the people ; and answerable to the people. The people of the United 
States have declared that this constitution shall be the supreme law. 
The states are sovereign so far as their sovereignty is not affected by 
this supreme law. But the state legislatures, as political bodies, how- 
ever sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the 
people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is 
good ; and the government holds of the people, and not of the state gov- 
ernments. The general government and the state governments derive 
their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the 
other, be called primary; though one is definite and restricted, and the 
other general and residuary. The national government possesses those 
powers conferred on it by the people; the rest belongs to the states and 
the people." 

But in erecting this government and giving it a constitution in which 
they have defined its powers, the people, he said, had done but half their 
work. No definition could be so clear as to avoid possibility of doubt. 
Who then should construe this grant of the people ? With whom did 
they repose the ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the govern- 
ment ? They had left it with the government itself, in its appropriate 
branches. Their design was to establish a government that should not 
be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and 
state discretion. The constitution, and the laws made under it, are de- 
clared to be supreme ; and it is declared that "the judicial power shall 
extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United 
States." These two provisions covered the whole ground. They were 
the key-stone of the arch. With these it was a constitution ; without 
them, it was a confederacy. In pursuance of these clear and express 
provisions, congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial 
act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all ques- 
tions of constitutional power to iha final decision of the supreme court. 
It tlien became a government ; it then had the means of self-protection. 



GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 495 

Mr. Hayne again replied to Mr. Webster, and reaffirmed t\ e doctrine 
of his former speech, on the authority of Mr. Madison's report, " that 
where resort can be, had to no common superior, the parties to the com- 
pact must themselves be the rightful judges," &c. ; and he denied the 
doctrine of Mr. Webster, that the federal government had " the power 
of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the extent of its own au- 
thority." The states in forming the compact, had not surrendered their 
sovereignty. A compact between two, with a right reserved to one to 
expound the instrument according to his own pleasure, was no compact 
at all, but an absolute surrender of the whole subject matter to the 
arbitrary discretion of the party who was constituted the judge. The 
states being parties to the compact in their capacity as states, and being 
sovereign and eq^ual, having no common superior, there could be no 
tribunal above their authority to decide whether the compact had been 
violated; and the federal government was bound to acquiesce in the 
solemn decision of a state thus acting in its sovereign capacity. He 
went into a long argument attempting to prove that the supreme court 
had not the power to decide in such cases, and said, if congress should 
attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law, they would put themselves 
clearly in the wrong ; and the state would have the right to exert its 
protecting 2J0iver. 

Mr. Webster, in a very brief reply, stated Mr. Hayne's propositions 
to be : (1.) That the constitution is a compact between the states ; (2.) 
That a compact between two, with authority reserved to one to inter- 
pret its terms, would be a surrender to that one of all power whatever ; 
and (3.) As an inference from these propositions, that the general gov- 
ernment does not possess the authority to construe its own powers. 

" Now, sir," said Mr. W., "who does not see, without exposition or 
detection, the utter confusion of ideas involved in this so elaborate and 
systematic argument ? The constitution, it is said, is a compact between 
states : the states, then, and the states only, are parties to the compact. 
How comes the general government itself a party ? Upon the honor- 
able gentleman's hypothesis, the general government is the result of the 
compact, the creature of the compact, not one of the parties to it. Yet 
the argument, as he has now stated it, makes the government itself one 
of its own creators. It makes it a party to that compact to which it 
owes its own existence. For the purpose of erecting the constitution on 
the basis of a compact, the gentleman considers the states as parties to 
that compact ; but as soon as his compact is made, then he chooses to 
consider the general government, which is the offspring of that compact, 
not as its offspring, but one of its parties ; and so, being a party, has 
not the power of judging on the terms of compact. Pray, sir, in what 
school is such reasoning taught ? * * * 



496 THE AMERICAN STATESMAW. 

" The gentleman says, if there be such a power of final decision in 
the general government, he asks for the grant of that po\Ycr. Well, sir, 
I show him the grant — I turn him to the very words — I show him that 
the laws of congress are made supreme ; and that the judicial power ex- 
tends, by express words, to the interpretation of these laws. Instead 
of answering this, he retreats into the general reflection, that it must 
result, from the nature of things, that the states being parties, must 
judge for themselves." 

Mr. W. argued farther, that, even supposing the constitution to be a 
compact between the states, that doctrine was not maintainable; because, 
first, the general government was not a party to the compact, but a 
government established by it, and vested by it with the powers of trying 
and deciding doubtful questions ; and, secondly, if the constitution were 
regarded as a compact, not one state only, but all the states, were parties 
to it ; and one alone could have no right to fix upon it her own peculiar 
construction. Yet the doctrine was, that Carolina alone might construe 
and interpret that compact which equally bound all, and gave equal 
rights to all. But the constitution, he said, was not a compact between 
state governments ; the constitution itself declaring, that it was ordained 
and established by " the people of the United States." It did not even 
say that it was established by the people of the several states ; but by 
the people of the United States in the aggregate. The confederation 
was strictly a compact between the states, as states ; but that was 
found insufficient, and the people, not satisfied with it, had established, 
not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between states, but a 
general government, directly responsible to the people, and divided into 
branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. 

Mr. Benton thought the power claimed by Mr. Webster for the 
supreme court was no less than a despotic power. That court was 
called supreme in reference to inferior courts — the district and circuit 
courts — and not in reference to the states of the union. A power to 
decide on the federal constitutionality of state laws, and to bind the 
states by the decision, was a power to govern the states. 

Mr. Rowan, of Kentucky, protested against the doctrine of Mr. Web- 
ster, which denied that the constitution was a compact formed by the 
states, but which asserted that it was a government formed by the 
people, and for the very purpose, among others, of imposing certain 
salutary restraints on state sovereignties. And the idea that the people 
had conferred upon the supreme court such a power, was a fallacy. He 
believed these doctrines struck at the root of all our free institutions, 
and led directly to a consolidation of the government. They had been 
inferred from the tenor of the first message of the late president x\dam3 



GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 497 

to congress. Now, the explicit avowal of them by the honorable sena- 
tor removed all doubt from the subject. We could no longer doubt as 
to the political faith of Mr. Adams. His most zealous and distin- 
guished apostle had avowed it. " The two parties," said Mr. R., " are 
now clearly distinguishable by their opposite political tenets ; the one 
headed by our illustrious chief magistrate, who is the friend and advo- 
cate of the rights of the states ; the other party is now headed by the 
senator from Massachusetts." Mr. R. undertook, by a long and able 
argument, to disprove these doctrines, and to show that the union had 
not been formed by the people of the United States in the aggregate, 
but in the capacity of states ; and the union was one of state sovereign- 
ties. The only security to the liberties of the people was in the pro- 
tecting power of the sovereignty of their respective states ; and when 
that sovereignty was subjected to the will of the supreme court, the 
people were subjected to the same tribunal ; and after all their vigi- 
lance and caution, in guarding against oppression from their rulers, they 
were, by this doctrine, to be subjected to the rule of a judicial aristo- 
cracy, whose tenure of power was for life, and irresponsible. He held 
that a state being sovereign, and owing allegiance to no higher power, it 
could not, by resisting a law of congress, commit treason or rebellion. 

After having spoken of the means of peaceable resistance, on the part 
of a state to an unconstitutional law, by nullifying resolutions, and other 
expressions of the public will, as having a rebuking effect of suflScient 
force to secure redress, he says : " But if these results should not fol- 
low, you ask me, what next ? Must the state forbear to resist the 
aggression upon her sovereignty, and submit to be shorn of it alto- 
gether ? I answer, no, sir, no ; that she must maintain her sovereignty 
by every means within her power. She is good for nothing, even worse 
than good for nothing, without it. This, you will tell me, must lead to 
civil war — to war between the general government and the resisting 
state. I answer, not at all, unless the general government shall choose 
to consecrate its usurpations by the blood of those it shall have 
attempted to oppress. And if the states shall be led, by apprehen 
sions of that kind, to submit to encroachments upon their sovereignties, 
they will most certainly not remain sovereign long. Fear is a bad 
counselor, of even an individual ; it should never be consulted by a 
sovereign state." 

Several questions here naturally suggest themselves to the reader. The 
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, among whose authors and exponents 
were Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, were in this debate adduced as 
authority for nullification, and that, too, by force, if necessary. If, as 
these resolutions declare, a state, in case of a supposed unconstitutional 

32 



498 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

act of congress, has " a right to judge for itself, as well of infractions aa 
of the mode and measure of redress ;" and if redress can not be had in 
any other way, it may be asked. Do these resolutions authorize a for- 
cible resistance ? Was nullification a distinctive doctrine of the Jack- 
son party ? Concerning the former question it may be said, that a 
strict construction of those resolutions would seem to justify a resort 
to force to obtain redress. Such construction, however, is at the pres- 
ent day rejected by a majority of those who approve the resolutions. 
Force, in the last resort, was plainly asserted by Messrs. Hayne and 
Rowan to be a constitutional mode of resistance ; and we are not aware 
that any administration senator who succeeded them in the debate, 
except Mr. Livingston, admitted the existence of any authority in the 
general government to bind a state by its decision. Nor ave we aware 
that any senator disclaimed the avowal of Mr. Rowan, that these were 
the distinctive doctrines of the administration party. This avowal, and 
the tacit consent which it received in the senate, and the prompt response 
to it of leading men and presses of the administration party, who hailed 
the views of state rights expressed by Mr. Hayne as " the true demo- 
cratic doctrine," for the defense of which " the democrats of the union 
owed him a debt of gratitude ;" indicated a recognition of them as party 
doctrines. 

It is true, however, that, although the theory of Mr. Hayne seems to 
have been maintained by nearly all the administration senators who 
argued this point, and the existence of a power in the general govern- 
ment to decide upon the binding force of a law of congress to have been 
denied; all of them did not assert the right of violent resistance ; as will 
appear from the speeches of those who followed in debate. 

Mr. Grundy denied the right of the legislature of a state to declare 
the nullity of a law, and to prevent its execution ; but gave it to a con- 
vention chosen by the people. 

Mr. Woodbury did not coincide in the assertion of a constitutional 
right of preventing the execution of a law believed to be unconstitu- 
tional ; the people were supreme, and could and would, in their omnipo- 
tence, and for sufficient cause, " always apply a most sovereign remedy," 
— evidently meaning force — if other means of redress should fail. 

Mr. Livingston, an administration senator, in his views of the nature 
of the constitution, and of the powers and rights of the parties to it, 
dissented in a measure from all who had preceded him. He thought it 
dangerous, on the one hand, to establish a constitutional veto in each of 
the states, upon any act of the whole, to be exercised whenever the leg- 
islature may suppose such act unconstitutional ; and on the other, it 
was dangerous to the state governments, to corsider that of the United 



GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 499 

States entirely popular, and to deny the existence of a compact. While 
he held that the general government could not have been brought into 
being without a compact, he admitted that there were in it characteris- 
tics of a popular kind — marks of a more intimate union and amalgamation 
of the interests of the citizens of the different states. The entire sove- 
reignty of the states, individually, had not been retained. The gov- 
ernment, also, for the most part, (except in the election of senators, 
representatives, president, and some other officers,) acted directly upon 
individuals, and not through the medium of state authorities. This was 
an essential character of a popular government. He placed little 
reliance, however, on the argument, that the preamble to the constitu- 
tion begins with the words, " We the people." It only proved that the 
people of the several states had been consulted, and had given their 
consent to the instrument. The people of each state had been consulted, 
to know whether that state would form a part of the United States, 
under the constitution ; and to that they had given their assent, simply 
as citizens of that state, [Note F.] 

The government, then, Mr. L. said, was neither a federative compact 
which left to all the parties their full sovereignty, nor such a consolidated 
popular government as deprived them of the whole of that sovereign 
power. It was a compact by which the people of each state had con- 
gented to the transfer of certain powers from their state legislature to 
the general government. As to all these attributes of sovereignty, 
which by the federal compact were so transferred, the general govern- 
ment was supreme ; the states had abandoned, and could never reclaim 
them. All other sovereign powers were retained by the states. 

Mr. L. then considered the powers of the supreme court, in regard to 
which he took substantially the same view as Mr. Webster. He said 
the states had not only given certain powers to the general government, 
but had expressly given also the right of enforcing obedience to the 
exercise of those powers. They had declared the constitution, and laws 
made in pursuance of it, to be supreme ; and they had also expressly 
consented, that the judiciary of the United States should have cognizance 
of all cases coming under those laws. As the constitution is paramount 
to a law of the United States, and as both are paramount to a law of the 
state, the supreme court of the United States must, of necessity, in a 
disputed case legally before it, determine the question ; and its decision 
must be final ; the states must be bound ; for in this compact they had 
agreed that their citizens should be so bound. 

This question was argued at length by Mr. L., with great clearness 
and ability; and we regret that we can not afford space for a greater 
portion of his speech. He controverted that interpretation of the Vir 



500 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ginia and Kentuck" resolutions which authorized a state to resist the 
execution of a law of congress, except in a case of intolerable and 
uncdnstitutional oppression, which was not a right under the constitution, 
but the undisputed right of revolution. 

Mr. Smith, of S. C, dissented from the views of his colleague and 
other administration senators in relation to the disposition of the public 
lands ; but concurred with them generally on the subject of the powers 
of the state and general governments. 

The speakers who followed Mr. Webster on the same side, expressed, 
essentially the same views in relation to the great constitutional question. 
Several of them displayed great ability ; and, like others, digressed from 
the subject of inquiry proposed by the resolution, traversing the whole 
field of incidental topics drawn into the discussion. On the whole, the 
debate was one of surpassing interest. It abounds with historical facts of 
great importance ; which alone are of sufl&cieut value to repay its perusal. 

A bill passed the senate at this session to reduce the price of public 
lands having been for a certain time in market, and to grant a preference 
to actual settlers, by selling to them at a lower price than to non-settlers. 
It reached the house at a late period of the session, and was laid on the 
table for want of time to consider it. 

A bill was reported in the house, to distribute the proceeds of the 
sales of the public lands, after the payment of the public debt, among 
the several states for purposes of education, in proportion to their re- 
presentation, severally, in congress. The question was discussed at 
length, prior to the report ; but the bill reported was not acted upon. 



CHAPTER XL. 

UNITED STATES BANK. MAYSVILLE ROAD BILL, AND OTHERS. VETOES 

OF THE PRESIDENT. 

That part of the president's message which related to the bank of the 
United States, was referred, iu the house, to the committee of ways and 
means, who made a most elaborate report on the subject, on the 13th of 
of April, 1830. The report was made by Mr. M'Duffie, of South Caro- 
lina, from whose pen it probably emanated. He was a supporter of the 
administration. The bank question had several times been an agitating 
element in our national politics. The public mind had again become 
quiet on the subject, and apparently regarded the bank as having become 



:nited states bank. 501 

a permanent fiscal agent of the government, the chart »r of which, at its 
expiration in 1836, would, it was presumed, be renewed, almost as a 
matter of course. The revival of this question under such circumstan- 
ces, and at a period nearly six years before application for a recharter 
of the institution was to have been expected, gave occasion for not a 
little speculation as to the cause of so early an agitation of this slum- 
bering subject. 

The report of the committee presented the following questions for the 
decision of congress : 

1st. Has congress the constitutional power to incorporate a bank, such 
as that of the United States ? 

2d. Is it expedient to establish and maintain such an institution ? 

3d. Is it expedient to establish " a national bank, founded upon the 
credit of the government and its revenues ?" 

In maintaining the affirmative of the first of these questions, the 
committee stated, that the first bank had been incorporated when most 
of the leading members of the convention of the framers of the consti- 
tution were in the executive and legislative councils of the nation. 
There having been as yet no organization of political parties, the deci- 
sion of the question was presumed to have been unaffected by that party 
prejudice which impairs the public confidence in a legislative interpreta- 
tion of the constitution. 

The renewal of its charter, in 1811, had been prevented chiefly, the 
committee believed, by the then existing state of political parties. Mr. 
Jefferson and Mr. Madison, the former in the cabinet, and the latter in 
congress, had opposed the first bank on constitutional grounds ; and as 
they had subsequently been placed at the head of the party most 
unfavorable to the extension of the powers of government by implica- 
tion, the bank question came to be regarded as, in some degree, a test 
of political principle. Some of the most distinguished republicans, how- 
ever, including Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Crawford, were ia favor of the 
renewal. It was at the time of the embargo and non-intercourse mea- 
sures — a time of violent party excitement — when the leading federal- 
ists, who were in favor of the bank, were peculiarly odious to the repub- 
licans. Prejudice against the iustitution was increased also by the fact, 
that the greater part of its stock was held by Brilfish subjects and fede- 
ralists. Yet, with all these difficulties to er<counter, the question of 
renewal was lost only by the casting vote of the president of the 
senate, vice-president Greorge Clinton, and by i majority of one vote in 
the house of representatives. 

Within three years thereafter, and before the close of the war, the 
circulating medium had become so disordered, and the public finances so 



502 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

deranged, that the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Dallas, with the 
sauctioa of Mr. Madison and his cabinet, recommended to congress the 
establishment of a bank, to revive the public credit, and to redeem the 
fiscal resources of the government from embarrassment. A bill was 
passed by both houses, and vetoed by him ; not, however, on constitu- 
tional grounds — he considered the question of constitutionality settled — 
but on account of objections to certain provisions of the bill. Another 
bill was immediately introduced, and would probably have become a law, 
had not the news of peace induced congress to suspend further proceed- 
ings until the next session. The attention of congress was then again 
directed to the subject by the president and his secretary ; and, against 
the opposition of the state banks, and the debtor class of community, a 
bill was passed, and approved by Mr. Madison. 

The committee then proceeded to discuss the constitutionality of a 
national bank. The power of congress to create a corporation had been 
denied. If congress, under the " power to pass all laws necessary and 
proper to carry into effect powers" expressly granted, might inflict the 
punishment of death without any other authority, why might it not pass 
a law for creating a corporation ? The chartering of a bank does not 
authorize the corporation to do any thing which the individuals compos- 
ing it might not do without a charter. The only material particular in 
which the charter of the bank conferred a privilege upon the corpora- 
tion apparently inconsistent with the state laws, was the exemption of the 
individual property of the corporators from responsibility for the debts 
of the corporation. But if the community dealt with the bank knowing 
that the capital subscribed was alone liable for its debts, no one could 
complain of imposition or injury. The real complaint against the bank 
was, not that it had not suiScient basis for its credit, but that its credit 
was too extensive : not against the artificial character communicated to 
the stockholders by the charter, but against the pecuniary operations of 
the bank itself. These operations consisted in the use of its own capi- 
tal — a faculty not derived from the government, but on the exercise of 
which the government imposes many useful restrictions for the benefit 
of itself and of the community. This analysis of a bank corporation 
was intended to show that it was not an unfit instrument in the hands 
of a government admitted to be sovereign in its appropriate sphere, for 
carrying into effect the powers expressly delegated. 

The committee say : " It will be no less instructive than curious, to 
notice some of the changes made in the opinions of prominent meo 
yielding to the authority of experience. Mr. Madison, who was the 
leading opponent of the bank created in 1791, recommended and sanc- 
tioned the .bank created in 1816 ; and Mr. Clay, who strenuously opposed 



UNITED STATES BANK. 503 

the renewal of the charter in 1811, as strenuously supported the propo- 
sition to grant the charter in 1816." 

In discussing the second question — that of expediency — the committee 
assumed as a fact, the continued existence of a state paper currency, which 
could not be prohibited by congress. But if it could be, they question 
the expediency of suddenly withdrawing one hundred millions of bank 
credit. The question really presented was, not between a metallic and 
a paper currency, but between a paper currency of uniform value, sub- 
ject to a competent controlling power, and a paper currency of fluctuat- 
ing value, and subject to no adequate control. A large number of local 
banks had sprung up in consequence of the withdrawal of the fifteen 
million of bank credit, by the winding up of the first bank of the United 
States. These banks, free from the control formerly exercised by that 
bank over the local institutions, made excessive issues, which speedily in- 
volved the country in all the embarrassments of a disordered currency. 

From a scale of depreciation of the local currency, presented by the 
committee, it appeared that the paper of the banks in Washington and 
Baltimore was from 20 to 22 per cent, below par. At Philadelphia, 17 to 
18 per cent. At New York and Charleston, it was from 7 to 10 per 
cent. In western Pennsylvania, it was 25 per cent. But this relative 
depreciation of bank paper at different places, as compared with specie, 
was not the worst evil produced by excessive issues of bank paper. 
The value of money, whether specie or paper, depreciated in proportion 
to the increase of its quantity. Hence if the circulating medium should 
be doubled, the prices of commodities would increase in the same propor- 
tion, let the credit of the bank bills be ever so good. Therefore, an individual 
who had borrowed a sum of money in 1816, when there was so great a 
redundancy of money caused by the increased issues of bank paper, and 
who paid the debt in 1820, when money had regained its natural value, 
evidently returned to the lender double the value received from him. 
The power of banks to suspend specie payments, and arbitrarily to con- 
tract and expand their issues, without any general control, exercised a 
dangerous and despotic power over the property of the community. 

The government, the committee said, had sustained great losses, in its 
fiscal operations, during the war, for the want of a sound currency. It 
had borrowed during this short period, 80 millions, at an average dis- 
count of 15 per cent., giving certificates of stock, amounting to 80 mil- 
lions, in exchange for 68 millions in such bank paper as could be ob- 
tained. Here was a loss of 12 millions, which would probably have 
been saved by a national bank. But this sum of 68 millions was received 
in a depreciated currency, not more than half as valuable as that in 
which the stock given in exchange for it had been and would be re- 
deemed. Here was a loss of 34 millions more. 



504 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The committee controverted the statement of the president in his 
message, that the bank had " failed in the great end of establishing a 
uniform and sound currency." He probably referred to the faet^ that 
the bills issued by any one of its branches are not redeemed by all the 
other branches. To have required this, would have been inexpedient and 
unjust. The effect would have been to compel the bank to perform the 
whole of the commercial exchanges of the country without compensation. 

It was not denied that the bills of the bank and all its branches were 
invariably redeemed at their respective offices ; nor was it denied that 
they were equal to specie In their respective spheres of circulation. If a 
Philadelphia merchant had silver instead of bank bills, he could not effect 
his purchases in New Orleans without paying for its transportation and 
insurance. These expenses constituted the natural rate of exchange be- 
tween the cities, and indicated the sum which the merchant would give as 
a premium for a bill of exchange, to avoid the trouble and delay of trans- 
porting his specie. And the bills of the bank would purchase a bill of 
exchange precisely as well as silver. 

The committee adverted to the great reduction which the bankhad effected 
in the rate of commercial exchanges; and to its having actually furnished a 
circulating medium more uniform than specie ; which was demonstrated 
by the fact that a Louisiana planter, if the whole circulating medium 
were specie, would, in order to make purchases in Philadelphia, be 
obliged to pay more either for a bill of exchange or for the transporta- 
tion and insurance of his specie, than it would cost to buy at the branch 
at New Orleans a draft upon the mother bank at Philadelphia. If, 
however, he did not choose to purchase a draft, he might transmit the 
bills to the most distant point, where, being receivable in payment of all 
dues to the government, persons would receive them at par ; and the 
bank would frequently receive them at par, and always at a discount less 
than would pay for transporting the specie. And for purposes of reve- 
nue, the bank gave to the national currency perfect uniformity — a per- 
fection to which a currency of gold and silver, in so extensive a country, 
could have no pretensions. A bill wherever issued, was of equal value 
with specie in payment of duties at any other place, however distant, 
where the bank issued bills, and the bank collects revenue. 

The bank also served to enforce specie payments by the local banks, 
and had aided them in doing so. It had been said that the government, 
by making the resumption and continuance of specie payments the con- 
dition upon which the state banks should receive the government funds, 
might have restored the currency to a state of uniformity. Not only 
could not this object have been accomplished in this way, but such a con- 
nection between the federal government and the state banks would, as the 



UNITED STATES BANK. 505 

committee believed, be dangerous to the purity of both ; and they gave 
at length their reasons for this opinion. 

The management of the bank, for the last ten years, was spoken of in 
high terms by the committee. It had been such as to accomplish the 
great ends for which it was established, and to promote the permanent 
interest of the stockholders, with the least practicable pressure upon the 
local banks. It had also carefully abstained from bringing its power 
and influence to bear upon political questions. 

In discussing the third question, the expediency of establishing " a 
national bank founded upon the credit of the government and its reve- 
nues," the committee presumed it to have been the intention of the pre- 
sident to be understood as having allusion to a bank of discount and de- 
posits. Such a bank must have branches similar to those of the present 
bank. It was not sufficient for commercial purposes, that persons in re- 
mote parts of the union had the promise of being paid specie for its 
notes at a central bank at the seat of government. The place of re- 
demption being so remote from the place of circulation, as to prevent 
their being presented for payment without great expense, they must be 
of very unequal value in different parts of the country. Its loans also 
must be confined principally to the place of its location. If it had as 
many branches as the bank of the United States, which employed five 
hundred agents in its various places of business, a vast addition would 
be made to the patronage of the executive; and, what was worse, was 
the power of patronage resulting from the dispensation of bank accom- 
modations to the amount of fifty millions of dollars ! 

The government was not adapted to a business of this kind. Capital 
thus employed required a vigilant and skillful superintendence, such as 
could be expected only from those who were influenced by the ever active 
motive of individual interest. Private friendship and political attach- 
ment would operate on the directors of a government bank to bestow its 
favors without impartiality or prudence ; and losses would be sustained 
by the insolvencies of government debtors. Experience had demonstrated 
the danger of having large masses of the community indebted to the 
government. But the strongest objection to a government bank was the 
powerful, and in the hands of a bad administration, the corrupting in- 
fluence which it would exercise over the elections of the country. With 
such a tremendous engine in their hands, it would be almost impossible 
to displace them without some miraculous interposition of Providence. 

A report like the foregoing, from a committee of seven members, five 
of whom were friends of the administration, was unexpected ; and that 
Mr. M'Duffie, the author of the report, should have departed so far 
from the southern principle of strict construction, as to assert so doubt- 



506 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ful a power as that of incorporating a national bank, was a cause of 
wonder — and the more so, since this power was more extensively ques- 
tioned than that claimed for a protective tariif, so flatly denied by Mr. 
M'Duflfie and his southern friends. 

Pursuant to a resolution of the senate, the finance committee of that 
body also, on the 29th of March, made a report on " the expediency of 
establishing a uniform national currency for the United States." The 
committee consisted of five members, three of them political friends of 
Gen. Jackson, of whom was the chairman, Mr. Smith, of Maryland. 
The report maintained, that there existed a sound and uniform currency, 
both for the government and the community, furnished by the bank of 
the United States ; and they declared the objections to the president's 
proposed government bank to be " insuperable and fatal," and the scheme 
to be " impracticable." 

A bill to authorize the general government to subscribe to the stock 
of the Maysville and Lexington turnpike road, in the state of Kentucky, 
was passed byboth houses at this session, but received the veto of the 
president. In his message returning the bill with his objections to the 
house of representatives, he refers to his annual message for an exhibi- 
tion of his views on the subject of internal improvements. He refers 
also to the opinions of Madison and Monroe on similar pccasions. To 
justify an appropriation for internal improvement, the object must be 
one of common defense, and of a general and national^ not a local or 
state benefit. 

The last administration, be said, had carried the appropriating power 
to the utmost extent claimed for it ; and it would be difficult, if not im- 
practicable, to bring back the operations of the government to the con- 
struction of the constitution set up in 1793; assuming that to belts 
true reading in relation to the power under consideration. 

He objected also, that the bills already passed, and those which would 
probably pass before the adjournment of congress, anticipated apj)ropri- 
atious which, with the ordinary public expenditures, would exceed the 
amount in the treasury for the year 1830. Adding to these the amount 
required by the bills then pending, the excess over the treasury receipts, 
(the revenue having been diminished by the reduction of thp duties on 
tea, coffee, &c.,) would exceed ten millions of dollars. 

On the question of the passage of the bill notwithstanding the objec- 
tions of the president, a short, though animated and acrimonious debate 
arose, in which some of the president's political friends expressed a 
strong dislike to the veto message. Mr. Daniel, of Kentucky, had sup- 
ported the measure, but was disposed to give the people an opportunity 
to consider coolly the objections urged by the president. His views on 



MAYSVILLE ROAD BILL. 507 

constitutional power coincided mainly with the message, although he did 
not agree, in every particular, with the doctrine contained in it. He was 
in favor of internal improvements, but thought the system, as it had been 
heretofore pursued, and as it had been attempted at the present session 
would soon involve the nation in an immense debt. 

Ml-. Stanbery, of Ohio, also of the administration party, considered 
the message as the voice of the president's chief minister, rather than 
of the president himself. The hand of the " great magician" was visi- 
ble in every line. The apprehension of a want of money to meet this 
small appropriation he thought unfounded. Most of the bills were 
merely the evidence of the opinions of the committees who had reported 
them, and would not become laws. The document was artfully contri- 
ved to bring the system of internal improvement into disrepute, and to 
deceive the people. It could never have issued from the president. 
The appropriations which had been made, had been asked for by the 
executive officers themselves, who had asked for more than had been 
granted. The most extravagant project this session, which he feared 
would for e^er disgrace this congress, was the removal of all the southern 
Indians, and had come recommended as the peculiar favorite of the exe- 
cutive. Many members had been induced to vote for the bill, contrary 
to their consciences, not having had independence to oppose the wishes 
of the president. He (Mr. S.) had many reasons for his opposition to 
that bill : one was the belief that its passage would strike a death blow 
to the whole system of internal improvement. It had received the sup- 
port of all the enemies to that system. 

Mr. Polk replied to Mr. Stanbery in very severe terms, calling him 
" a covert, political adversary," and charging him with having recently 
formed new associations ; and proceeded to defend the president from 
the aspersions cast upon him. He (the president) had followed the 
examples of Madison and Monroe; and had achieved a civil victory 
which would shed more lustre upon his future fame than many such vic- 
tories as that of New Orleans ; for he had, by this single act, done more 
than any man in this country, for the last thirty years, to preserve the 
constitution, and to perpetuate our liberties. Mr. P. animadverted with 
equal severity upon certain remarks of Mr. Chilton, a former supporter 
of the president, who had asked if congress were to be controlled by 
one man. He defended the veto power as a wholesome check upon the 
acts of the legislature. 

The debate was continued by Messrs. P. P. Barbour, of Virginia, 
Bell and Isacks, of Tennessee, and Wayne, of Georgia, on the same 
pide ; and by Mr. Vance, of Ohio, in opposition. Mr. Sutherland, of 
Pennsylvania said he would vote for the bill, though he was a friend of 



50S THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Gen Jackson. He represented a state which was friendly both to the 
president and to the system of internal improvements, which would yet 
universally prevail. The question was decided by a vote of ayes, 96, 
noes, 90. Not having received the votes of two-thirds of the house, the 
bill was rejected. The vote of the house on its passage before it had 
been presented to the president, was 96 to 87 ; and that of the senate, 
24 to 18. 

Many of the friends of Gen. Jackson, who, by his course in the 
senate, and his explicit assurance in his answer to the legislature of 
Indiana, of his adherence to the tariflf and internal improvement sys- 
tems, were both disappointed and displeased at this exercise of the veto 
power, regarding it as an abandonment of his former principles. To 
the south, the act was peculiarly gratifying ; and it was defended by 
a large majority of his friends even at the north, who either declared 
their opposition to the system, or regarded the veto, not as evidence of 
hostility to the system, but simply as being demanded by the unconsti- 
tutionality of this particular measure. Southern feeling was truly 
represented by Mr. P. P. Barbour on the rejection, at the same session, 
of the Buffalo and New Orleans road bill. The house having decided 
against the third reading of the bill, 105 to 88, Mr. B., thinking " that 
the house had done enough for glory for one day, moved that it now 
adjourn." The house, however, on that occasion, by a larger vote, refused 
to adjourn. 

Another bill, authorizing a subscription to the Washington Turnpike 
company, was also negatived at this session by the president; and two 
others, one authorizing a subscription to the Louisville and Portland canal 
company ; another, appropriating money for lighthouses, improving har- 
bors, directing surveys, &c., were retained until the next session of 
congress, when, in his annual message, December, 1830, he gave at 
length his objections to the bills, and to the system of internal improve- 
ments, and again suggested the propriety of a general plan by which an 
equal distribution of the surplus revenues should be made among the 
several states, to be used for purposes of internal improvements. 

The committee, in the house of representatives, to which this part of 
the message was referred, Mr. Hemphill, of Pennsylvania, chairman, a 
friend of the administration, made a report, February, 1831, adverse to 
the views of the president. The report took a minute review of the 
practice of the government, showing that it had been, on the whole, 
favorable to internal improvements. The committee had little if any 
doubt as to the nationality or expediency of some of the bills passed at 
the preceding session, and vetoed by the president. Some parts of the 
message relating to this subject were severely commented upon, as likely 



VETOES OF THE PRESIDENT. 509 

to lead to incorrect conclusions. The message stated the expenditures 
heretofore made for internal improvements at upwards of five millions 
of dollars; and the estimated expense of works partially and entirely 
surveyed and projected, at ninety-six millions. The president having 
been called on for a statement of all these works, had Included in his 
report objects not considered by the committee as properly coming under 
the head of internal improvements. They did not consider works facili- 
tating foreign commerce to be of such character ; but the president 
had embraced in his report, the expenses of "building piers, improving 
ports, bays, and harbors, and of removing obstructions to the navigation 
of rivers ;" and these made up nearly one-half of what was called 
*' expenditures for internal improvements." 

The committee concluded their report by offering a resolution, " That 
it is expedient that the general government should continue to prosecute 
internal improvements by direct appropriations of money, or by sub- 
scriptions for stock in companies incorporated in the respective states." 

An act was passed at this session, " making additional appropriations 
for the improvement of certain harbors, and removing obstructions in 
the mouths of certain rivers," by large majorities : in the house by a 
vote of 136 to 53 ; in the senate, 28 to 6. An act was also passed, 
" for carrying on certain roads and works of internal improvement, and 
for providing for surveys," by large majorities. Whether the president 
regarded these bills as free from the objections to which former bills 
were liable ; or whether he believed it the duty of the executive to yield 
to so decisive an expression of the wishes of the people through their 
representatives, we are not informed. 

At the session of 1829-30, an act for the more effectual collection ot 
impost duties, was passed. It was shown by Mr. Mallary, that enor- 
mous frauds upon the revenue had been committed, by means of false 
invoices and sample packages, and by various other expedients. It was 
estimated, that the treasury had been defrauded for the last ten years, 
to the amount of $3,000,000 annually. Mr. M'Duffie, by way of 
amendment, offered a bill, previously reported by himself as chairman 
of the committee of ways and means, proposing an essential reduction 
of duties on iron, hemp, wool, cotton, raw, and manufactured ; salt, 
sugar, molasses, &c. He was in favor, he said, of enforcing the col- 
lection of the revenue, even though he might object to the laws by which 
it was levied. But in this case he would do it by diminishing the 
duties, and thereby removing the inducements to evade them. Mr. 
M'Dufl&e occupied the floor several days, discussing the policy of the 
protecting system, and exhibiting what he deemed its pernicious effects 
upon the country. 



510 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The amendment of Mr. M'D. was negatived; and the bill after hav- 
ing been amended, became a law. Separate acts were passed ; one " to 
reduce the duty on molasses, and to allow a drawback on spirits distilled 
from foreign materials ;" another, " to reduce the duty on salt;" and 
still another, " to reduce the duties on tea, coffee, and cocoa." It will 
perhaps be recollected, that the duty on molasses was, in 1828, increased 
from five to ten cents a gallon, against the wishes of the people of a 
large portion of the northern and eastern states. It was alleged, at the 
time, that the object of this proposed increase of duty on this and cer- 
tain articles was to " weigh down the bill" of that year, by making it 
objectionable to the friends of protection. This, with the additional 
fact, that the duties on tea, coffee, &c., had been laid for revenue only, 
was not now so much needed, doubtless facilitated the passage of these 
laws. 



CHAPTER XLI. 

GEORGIA AND THE CHEROKEES. DEBATE ON THE " INDIAN BILL.'' 

OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 

The establishment, by the Indian tribes, of independent governments 
within any of the states, with a view to a permanent location, and the 
expediency of arresting such location, had been made the subject of 
inquiry at the session of congress of 1827-8. It was referred to a com- 
mittee, but no report was made : and the subject received no farther 
attention during Mr. Adams' administration. The determination ex- 
pressed in the message of Gen. Jackson, to suppress the attempts of the 
Indians to establish and maintain governments of their own within the 
states of Georgia and Alabama, and to effect their removal beyond the 
Mississippi, or to permit their subjection to the sovereignty and legisla- 
tion of those states, had been intimated almost immediately after the 
new administration came into power. 

A delegation of the Cherokees were officially informed, that the gov- 
ernment would sustain the states in exercising jurisdiction over the 
Indians within their limits, and that their exemption from the operation 
of the laws of those states was to be hoped for only by removal. In 
August, 1829, a proposition was made by the general government 
through Gov. Carroll, of Tennessee, to John Ross, principal chief of 
the Cherokees, to meet commissioners to be appointed by the president 



GEORGIA AND THE CHEROKEES. 511 

to discuss the subject of their removal. This proposition was declined. 
From the oft repeated declarations of the Indians, of their indisposition 
to remove, it was well known that no offers could induce them to enter 
into a treaty on the subject. 

In December following, an act was passed by the legislature of Georgia, 
annexing the different portions of their territory to the adjoining coun- 
ties, extending over them the laws of the state, and annulling the laws 
and revelations of the Indians ; the act to take effect the 1st of June, 
1830. This act was followed by a memorial to congress, setting forth 
their grievance in the following pathetic terms : 

" We are told, if we do not leave the country, which we dearly love, 
and betake ourselves to the western wilds, the laws of the state will be 
extended over us; and the time, the 1st of June, 1830, is appointed for 
the execution of the edict. When we first heard of this, we were 
grieved, and appealed to our father, the president, and begged that pro- 
tection might be extended over us. But we were doubly grieved when 
we understood, from a letter of the secretary of war to our delegation, 
dated March of the present year, that our father, the president, had 
refused us protection, and that he had decided in favor of the exten- 
sion of the laws of the state over us. This decision induces us to appeal 
to the immediate representatives of the American people." 

Against the claim of Georgia to the right of soil and of jurisdiction 
over it, the memorial says : " When the white man came to the shores 
of America, our ancestors were found in pea(jeable possession of this 
very land. They bequeathed it to us as their children, and we have 
sacredly kept it as containing the remains of our beloved men. This 
right of inheritance we have never ceded, nor exex: forfeited. Permit us 
to ask. What better right can a people have to a country than the right 
of inheritance, and immemorial peaceable 2^ossession ? We know it is 
said of late by the state of Georgia, and by the executive of the United 
States, that we have forfeited this right. At what time have we made 
the forfeit ? Was it when we were hostile to the United States, and 
took part with Great Britain, during the struggle for independence ? If 
so, why was not this forfeiture declared in the first treaty of peace 
between the United States and our beloved men ? This was the proper 
time to assume such a position. But it was not thought of; nor would 
our forefathers have agreed to any treaty whose tendency was to deprive 
them of their rights and their country." 

As another evidence of their right to the lands in question, they had 
the faith and pledge of the United States, repeated over and ever again, 
in treaties at various times, by which their rights as a separate peojilo 
had been distinctly acknowledged, and guaranties given that they shouk! 



1^15 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAW. 



be secured and protected. Yet it was asserted that they held their 
lands only by a right of occupancy. They say : " In what light shall 
we view the conduct of the United States and Georgia, in their inter- 
course with us, in urging us to enter into treaties and code lands ? If 
we were but tenants at will, why was it necessary that our consent must 
be obtained before these governments could take lawful possession of our 
lands ^ * * # The undersigned memorialists humbly represent, 
that if their interpretation of the treaties has been different from that 
of the government, then they have ever been deceived as to how the 
government regarded them, and what she asked and promised. 

" In view of the strong ground upon which their rights are founded, 
your memoralists solemnly protest against being considered mere tenants 
at will, or as mere occupants of the soil, without possessing the sove- 
reignty. We protest against being forced to leave it, either by direct or 
indirect measures. To the land of which we are now in possession, we 
are attached — it is our fathers' gift — it contains their ashes — it is the 
land of our nativity, and the land of our intellectual birth. We do 
moreover protest against the arbitrary measures of our neighbor, the 
state of Georgia, in her attempt to extend her laws over us, in survey- 
ing our lands without our consent, and in direct opposition to treaties 
and the intercourse law of the United States, and interfering with our 
municipal regulations so as to derange the regular operation of our own 
laws. The existence and future happiness of your memorialists are at 
stake : divest them of their liberty and country, and you sink them in 
degradation, and put a check, if not a final stop, to their pr-'Tent pro- 
gress in the arts of civilized life, and in the knowledge of the Christian 
religion. Your memorialists can not anticipate such a result. You 
represent a virtuous, intelligent, and Christian nation. To you they 
willingly submit their cause for your righteous decision." 

On the 29th of March, 1830, the attorney-general, Mr. Berrien, 
having been applied to for his opinion in relation to the title of the lands 
occupied by the Cherokees, communicated the same to the war depart- 
ment. He maintained, on the authority of decisions of the supreme 
court, that the right of the Indians to the lands in question, was one of 
occupancy merely. The court had declared, that, by the treaty with 
Q-reat Britain which concluded the revolution, the powers of government 
and the rights to the soil which had been in Great Britain, passed 
definitively to the states ; and that the United States, or the several 
states, had a clear title to all lands within the boundary lines described 
in the treaty, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. 

In confirmation of his opinion, he referred also to the treaties with 
this tribe. In the first, which was concluded at Hopewell in 1785, they 



3E0RGIA AND THE CHEROKEES. 5l3 

were manifestly considered as a conquered people ; and the terms of tbat 
instrument recognized the principle adverted to by the supreme court 
in the case of Johnson and M'Intosh, " that a conqueror prescribes the 
limits of the right of conquest ; and that the limitations which humanity 
imposes upon civilized nations can not be applied and enforced in rela- 
tion to a savage tribe." The treaty declares, that the United States 
'* give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into the favor and 
•protection of the United States of America, on the following conditions?'' 
This language supposed that the tribe was no longer in an independent 
state, in which it could stipulate for itself that there should be peace 
between the United States and its people. It could receive peace only 
as a boon — as the mere favor of the conqueror. They were required to 
acknowledge themselves under the protection of this government, and to 
abjure all other protection. Thus humbled before their conqueror, a 
country had been assigned them in which they might dwell ; or, as ex- 
pressed by the treaty, " allotted to the Cherokees for their hunting 
grounds^ No interest in the soil had been conferred ; the fee remain- 
ing in the state. Upon this principle, it was contended, all the subse- 
quent treaties must be interpreted. 

By a treaty made in 1817, the United States agree to exchange lands 
with those Cherokees who wished to remove beyond the Mississippi 
river, and to pay them for valuable improvements made on their lands. 
This treaty also provided, " that all those improvements, left by the 
emigrants within the bounds of the Cherokee nation, east of tha Missis- 
sippi river, which add real value to the lands, and for which the 
United States shall give a consideration, and not so exchanged, shall be 
rented to the Indians, until surrendered to the nation or by the nation." 
The attorney-general maintained, that the United States, in consideration 
of those payments, became landholders in the Cherokee nation, within 
the limits of those boundaries which wer§ yet reserved to them as hunt- 
ing grounds. The exchanges and leases made under this agreement, gave 
to the jDarties exchanging and to the lessees the right of occupancy ; 
which was the utmost to which the Indian title amounted ; and to this 
title of occupancy, the United States had succeeded. 

The title which the United States had thus acquired, they were bound 
by the compact of 1 802, in which Georgia had ceded her western lands to 
the United States, to transfer to that state : whatever right was acquired 
by the United States, immediately inured to the benefit of Georgia, both 
because they had no right without the consent of Georgia, to acquire 
domain within the limits of that state, and because they had stipulated 
to acquire this title for that state. The supreme court had, in the case- 
mentioned, decided that the United States or the several states, had a 

33 



514 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

title to all the Indian lands within their boundaries : and in the ca^e of 
Fletcher and Peck, they had declared, with regard to the lands in 
Georgia occupied by the Indians, that the ultimate fee was in that state. 
Whether this right was to be exercised independently, or under the 
supervision of the federal government, the attorney-general said, was a 
Ljuestion which would depend on the terms and validity of what was com- 
monly called the Indian intercourse act. 

A bill " to provide for an exchange of lands within any of the states 
or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi," was 
reported by the committee on Indian affairs of each house. The bill of 
the senate, reported on the 22d of February, 1830, by Mr. White, of 
Tennessee, was taken up in committee of the whole on the 6th of April, 
and was debated until the 24th, when it was passed to the third read- 
ing, 28 to 19. The principal speakers in favor of the bill, were, Mr. 
White, who reported it, Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, and Mr. Adams, of 
Mississippi; and Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey^ Mr. Sprague, of 
Maine, and Mr. Robbins, of Rhode Island, in opposition. 

Mr. Frelinghuysen moved an amendment to the bill, providing that, 
until the Indians should choose to. remove, they should be protected in 
their possessions and rights of government ; and that, before any ex- 
change of lands should be made, their rights in the premises should be 
guarantied by treaty. And again at the close of the debate, he moved 
a proviso that nothing contained in the bill should " be so construed as 
to authorize the departure from, or non-observance of any treaty or agree- 
ment now subsisting between the United States and the Cherokee 
Indians." But these proposed amendments were all negatived. 

As the removal of the Indians was a favorite measure of president 
Jackson, and as his policy towards them was alleged to be a departure 
from that which had been observed by all his predecessors, we consider 
it due to a subject of so much importance, and to the parties to the con- 
troversy, to subjoin a sketch of the principal arguments of some of the 
leading speakers who participated in the debate. 

It ought, perhaps, to be here stated, that there was nothing in the 
bill itself, which made the removal of the Indians compulsory. The 
change of policy consisted in conceding to the states the right of soil, 
and in subjecting the Indians to the government of the states. Pre- 
suming that, if reduced to the alternative of submitting to the govern- 
ment and laws of Georgia and Alabama, or of exchanging their lands, 
they would choose the latter, the bill was intended to meet this con- 
tingency. 

Mr. White, who reported the bill, but of whose speech we have no 
full report, is said to have conceded that the faith of the United States 



DEBATE ON THE " INDIAN BILL." 515 

had been repeatedly pledged to the Cherokees for their protection ; but 
he contended that the general government ought not to perform its stipu- 
lations against the earlier and conflicting claims of Georgia ; and that, if 
it had made engagements with Georgia and the Indians, which could 
not both be fulfilled, the prior engagement should be performed, and com- 
pensation should be made for the breach of the other. 

Mx". Frelinghuysen, in reply, alluded to the early recognition by the 
government of the rights of the Indians under treaty stipulations. In 
a communication from Gen. Washington to the senate, August 22d, 
1789, he submitted certain leading principles of policy which he thought 
proper to pursue, and which were embodied in seven distinct interroga- 
tories ; of which one was, " whether the United States should solemnly 
guaranty to the Creeks their remaining territory, and maintain the same, 
if necessary, by a line of military posts;" and which was answered in 
the aflBrmative. And in August, 1790, in another communication to the 
same body, he reminds them of the treaty with the Cherokees, at Hope- 
well, in November, 1785, by which they had placed themselves under 
the protection of the United States, and had a boundary assigned them. 
Intrusions upon their lands having been made by the whites, some of 
whom remained after having been enjoined to depart, the president an- 
nounced his determination to exert his constitutional power in carrying 
into execution the treaty of Hopewell, unless a new boundary should be 
arranged, including the intrusive settlements, and compensating the 
Cherokees for the territory ceded. A new b'^undary was arranged, and 
solemnly guarantied by a new treaty. But this illustrious precedent of 
Washington and his constitutional advisers was not regarded by the pre- 
sent administration. Treaties were declared by the constitution to be 
the supreme law of the land ; and the president and all other depart- 
ments, officers and people, were bound by them. 

Mr. F. maintained the political and civil rights of the Indians, first, 
on the ground of immemorial possession, as the original tenants of the 
soil ; a title superior to that of the British crown, or any subsequent 
claim. Where was the decree or ordinance that had stripped these first 
lords of the soil ? How could even a shadow of a claim to soil or juris- 
diction be derived by forming a collateral issue between Georgia and the 
general government? Her complaint was against the United States for 
encroachments on her sovereignty. The Cherokees were no parties to 
this issue ; they held by a better title than either Georgia or the union. 
They had treated with us, it was true, not, however, to acquire title or 
jurisdiction — these they had before ; but to secure protection and guar- 
anty for subsisting powers and privileges. And we had, in all our inter- 
course with them, recognized their title. All our acquisitions of territory 



516 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

had been obtained by purchase and cession. "We had also regarded them 
as nations, and respected their forms of government. 

Mr. F. traced our history in these connections. As early as 1763, 
the king of Great Britain, in a proclamation issued to the American 
colonies, recognized the right of the Indians under our protection, to the 
undisturbed " possession of such parts of our territory as had not been 
ceded to or purchased by us ;" and enjoined all persons whoiad " either 
wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon such lands," to remove 
from them. In 1775, on the eve of the war, we had approached them as 
independent nations having power to form alliances with or against us, 
for the purpose of engaging the continuance of their friendship. Their 
sovereignty had never been questioned by the illustrious statesmen of 
that period. 

After the revolution (1783,) congress resolved to treat with the tribes 
of the middle and northern states who had taken up arms against us, 
" for the purpose of receiving them into the favor and protection of the 
United States, and of establishing boundary lines of property, &c., and 
thereby extinguishing, as far as possible, all occasion for future animosi- 
ties, disquiet and contention." Instead of the claims of conquest, the rights 
of war, now so convenient to set up, congress accorded to these Indians 
the character of foreign nations, tendered them our favor and protection, 
and adopted measures to establish boundary lines of property between 
our citizens, and their villages and hunting grounds. 

In ] 785, was made the treaty of Hopewell, by which the Cherokees 
agreed to restore all prisoners, citizens of the United States, and sub- 
jects of their allies, to their entire liberty ; and peace was to be given to 
the Cherokees, and they were to be received under the protection of the 
United States. Here, again, was a negotiation with the allies of our 
enemy without any pretense to the rights of a conqueror. Their weak- 
ness did not destroy their sovereignty. Vattel gave it as a rule of pub- 
lic law, " that one community might be bound to another by a very 
unequal alliance, and still be a sovereign state. Though a weak state, 
in order to provide for its safety, should place itself under the protection 
of a more powerful one ; yet, if it reserves to itself the right of govern- 
ing its own body, it ought to be considered as an independent state." 
Never had the southern Indians been disturbed in the enjoyment of this 
right, until the late legislation by the states of Georgia, Alabama and 
Mississippi. 

This treaty also established territorial domains and forbade all intru- 
sions upon them. A citizen of the United States, remaining six months 
on the Indian lands, forfeited the protection of the government, and 
might be punished by the Indians. 



DEBATE ON THE "INDIAN BILL." 517 

When, iu 1787, Georgia and North Carolina, in their protests to con- 
gress, asserted the right of states to treat with the Indian tribes, and to 
obtain grants of their lands, the subject was referred to a committee, 
who, in their report, argued conclusively, that, to yield such powers to 
particular states, would not only be absurd in theory, but would in fact 
destroy the whole system of Indian relations. After this, no more was 
heard of state protests. 

Mr. F. referred to the power of congress to " regulate commerce with 
the Indian tribes," and to the treaty-making power ; in the exercise of 
both of which was an implied recognition of them as foreign nations. 
And the convention of framers, to compel us to be faithful in the ob- 
servance of treaties, had provided that they should be the " supreme law 
of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the 
contrary notwithstanding." 

The treaty of Holston was also adverted to, the preamble to which, 
commences thus : " The parties being desirous of establishing perma- 
nent peace and friendship between the United States and the Cherokee 
nation, and to remove the causes of war, by ascertaining their limits, and 
making other necessary, just, and friendly arrangements," &c., (the 
parties being named, " with full powers for these purposes,") " have 
agreed to the following articles," &c. Here again, all the forms of a 
treaty with a distinct nation were observed. Georgia had done the 
same herself, in 1777, where, with South Carolina, she met the Creeks 
and Cherokees at Dewitt's Corner, for the purpose of making a treaty 
with them ; the representatives of both parties appearing with full 
powers." And as late as 1825, the governor of Georgia had issued a 
proclamation, forbidding intrusions, by the citizens of that state, " upon 
lands occupied by the Indians within its limits ;" and adds : " All good 
citizens, therefore, pursuing the dictates of good faith, will unite in en- 
forcing the obligations of the treaty as the supreme law," &c. — a treaty, 
said Mr. P., with the very Indians now asserted by Georgia to be be- 
low the reach of treaties. 

The sentiments of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, were also cited 
to sustain the position he had assumed ; but we have not room to pur- 
sue the arguments of this speech. 

Mr. Forsyth followed Mr. Frelinghuysen in a long and able reply. 
He said, the first article of the treaty of Galphinton, of November, 1785, 
from which the gentleman had himself quoted, was as follows : " The 
said Indians, (the Creeks,) for themselves, and all the tribes or towns 
within their respective nations, within the limits of the state of Georgia, 
have been, and now are, members of the same, since the day and date 
of the constituti;n of the said state of Georgia." He thought this article 



518 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

broad enough to sustain the claim of the state to sovereignty over tho 
Creeks. If they were members of the state, as they had acknowledged 
themselves, what had become of their separate and independent character 
as a nation or tribe ? 

The treaty of Dewitt's Corner, of May, 1777, with South Carolina 
and Georgia, settled the question with the Cherokees. The first article 
was in these words : " The Cherokee nation acknowledged that the troops, 
during the last summer, repeatedly defeated their forces, victoriously 
penetrated through their lower towns, middle settlements, and valleys ; 
and quietly and unopposed, built, held, and continue to occupy, the fort 
at Esenneca, thereby did effect and maintain the conquest of all the 
Cherokee lands, east of the Unicaye mountain ; and to and for their 
people did acquire, possess, and yet continue to hold, in and over the 
said lands, all and singular, the rights incidental to conquest ; and 
the Cherokee nation, in consequence thereof, do cede the said lands to 
the said people, the people of South Carolina." The Cherokees admit- 
ted the right of South Carolina, by conquest, to all the land in the 
valley below the Unicaye mountains, which were in Tennessee, beyond 
the territorial claims of South Carolina and Georgia; and no subse- 
quent change in the political condition of the United States, could be 
used as a pretext for denying to Georgia the claim to sovereignty over 
the Cherokees within her limits. 

The treaty of Hopewell, beginning with the words, " The United 
States give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into their favor 
and protection," surrendered to congress the power of legislating for 
them at discretion, thus : " For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, 
and for the prevention of injuries or oppressions on the part of the 
citizens or Indians, the United States, in congress assembled, shall have 
the sole and exclusive right of regulating trade with the Indians, and 
managing all their affairs in such manner as they shall think proper." 
This treaty, with its biirthens and benefits, fell to the new government 
when it was established under the constitution. It might be said that, 
because the United States had sovereignty over the Cherokees, it did 
not follow that Georgia had it. But the power of legislation over the 
Cherokees acquired by the United States, had been transferred to 
Georgia by the compact of 1802. Georgia ceded to the United States 
all her right to the jurisdiction and soil of the lands lying west of the 
Chattahoochie, as far as Mississippi, &c. ; and the United States ceded 
to the state of Georgia whatever claim, right, or title they might have 
to the jurisdiction and soil of any lands, lying within the United States, 
east of the eastern boundary of the territory ceded by Georgia to the 
United States, and south of the states of Tennessee, North Carolina, and 



DEBATE ON THE "INDIAN BILL." 519 

South Carolina. If gentlemen found fault with this transfer of power 
to Georgia, the justice of it must be settled by the United States and 
the Cherokees. Mr. F. thought it strange that the gentleman from New 
Jersey, when he quoted from these same treaties, had not seen the pro- 
visions to which he had directed his attention. 

Mr. Forsyth said he was willing to meet the gentleman on the con- 
struction of these treaties ; and invited him to present distinct resolu- 
tions, affirming that the Indians were independent, beyond the control 
of the states ; that the fee simple of the land they occupied was theirs ; 
that neither the general government nor the states could regulate their 
affairs ; that treaties could only be made with them by the United States. 
The legislation of the states and of the United States, the judicial de- 
cisions of both the federal and state tribunals, all proved these positions 
untenable. Georgia, in exercising jurisdiction over the Indians within 
her territory, only followed the example of the New England states, 
New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland; 
and while the latter escaped censure, the former had drawn upon her- 
self torrents of invective and reproach. This was to be attributed to 
the missionaries and their friends and patrons ; to the few half-breeds 
and white men in whose hands is the Cherokee government, and who 
regulate the affairs and control all the funds of the tribe, and conduct 
a press supported by these funds. Another powerful agent was the 
delegation which ihe Cherokee government had at Washington, to de- 
fend the independence of the tribe. And knowing the value of money, 
the council had authorized the delegates to pay out of the treasury for 
any aid or advice they might wish to obtain. 

The senator from New Jersey had asked, why Georgia had acquiesced 
in the exercise of the treaty-making power by the federal government. 
Georgia, having imposed upon the United States the obligation to ex- 
tinguish the Indian title, did not consider herself authorized to interfere 
in the manner in which that obligation was performed. After a lapse 
of twenty-eight years, a large territory still remained unoccupied by the 
Indians : and was it surprising that the Georgians should inquire why 
it was that this compact had not been fully and faithfully executed ? 

Mr. F. complained of the acts of the general government. Treaties 
had been made by Georgia with the Indians before the adoption of the 
constitution. Their validity having been disputed, Gen. Washington, 
the first president, asked the advice of the senate on these points : Should 
an inquiry be made into the circumstances under which these treaties 
were held? If fairly held, should they be enforced by the union ? If 
not valid, should they be made the bases of new arrangements with the 
southern tribes ? These inquiries were answered in the affirmative 



520 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Investigation was made ; the commissioners of tlio United States reported 
that these compacts had been made with the usual formalities and fair- 
ness of Indian treaties. But they were not enforced ; an arrangement 
was preferred ; and territory previously surrendered to the state by the 
Indians, was restored to them as hunting grounds : and the intercourse 
act of 1790 was passed to enforce this violation of state sovereignty. 
Georgia came here to protest agaiost this new treaty, and against the 
law of 1790, as equally repugnant to her claims and to the constitution 
of the United States. 

In 1817, through the agency of Gen. Jackson, a contract was made 
with the Cherokees, providing for their removal from Georgia ; aeon- 
tract made at their instance, and for the accommodation of that portion 
of them who occupied the lower towns, lying in Georgia, and desired to 
remove to the west to continue the hunter's life ; those of the upper 
towns, lying out of Georgia, wishing to remain where they were. The 
contract was but partially executed ; the interests of Georgia were sacri- 
ficed to the policy of the federal government. The Cherokees who 
wished to remain, threw obstacles in the way of emigration. Without appa- 
rent reasonable cause the contract of 1817 was abandoned, and that of 
1819 substituted. The Cherokees remained ; and the idea was held out to 
the tribe of a permanent residence, with a view to their civilization. 
This new arrangement led to the belief that Mr. Monroe's administra- 
tion was not disposed to act fairly towards the state. 

Mr. F. said he had been surprised to hear the senator from New 
Jersey quote from the royal proclamation of 1763. to prove that Great 
Britain had never asserted the right to legislate for the savages, or to 
appropriate their lands without a previous purchase. It asserted, 1st. 
The sovereignty and dominion of Great Britain over the Indians and 
Indian territory ; 2d. That the Indians were, as subjects, under the 
protection of the crown ; 3d. That the right to appropriate the land oc- 
cupied by them resided in the crown. It contained grants to the whites, 
and reservations to the Indians as hunting grounds. The laws and 
usages of the colonies thi-ew additional light on the subject. In war, 
the Indians had not been treated as a civilized enem3^ The males had 
been put to death on the principle of retaliation ; and the women and 
children sold into slavery for the benefit of the captors. In some states, 
rewards had been offered for captives, and dogs had been trained for 
pursuing Indian rebels. 

On the declaration of independence, the authority previously exer 
cised by Great Britain was assumed by the states, respectively, within 
their limits. In the war, the Indians were the allies of Great Britain, 
and were conquered. The right of sovereignty and domain which we 



DEBATE ON THE "INDIAN BILL." 521 

had aCfjuired, covered the claim of legislation over them, and of title to 
the land they occupied. Our independence was acknowledged ; and the 
treaty of peace was formed with the confederation ; and there was 
nothing in the articles of the confederation which deprived the individ- 
ual states of any portion of their sovereignty over Indians or Indian 
lands. 

Mr. Sprague said, that we had with the Cherokees not less than fif- 
teen treaties. The first was made in 1785, and the last in 1819. By 
several of them, we have guarantied to the Cherokees, 1st. Their sepa- 
rate existence as a political community ; 2d. Undisturbed possession 
and full enjoyment of their lands within certain defined boundaries ; 
3d. The protection of the United States against all interference with 
or encroachments upon their rights by any people, state, or nation. 
For these promises on our part, we received ample consideration, by 
the restoration and establishing of peace ; by large cessions of territory ; 
by the promise, on their part, to treat with no other state or nation ; 
and other important concessions. The treaties had been made with all 
the forms and solemnities necessary to make them binding. The Che- 
rokees now come to us and say, that their rights are threatened by 
Georgia and Alabama, and ask for the promised protection. 

The treaty of Dewitt's Corner had been cited, by wjiich the Chero- 
kees had acknowledged that a portion of their country had been con- 
quered ; and the same had been ceded to South Carolina. It had not 
been, for at least one generation, claimed or occupied by the Indians. 
What right, he asked, could this confer on Georgia to lands now owned 
and possessed by the Cherokees ? This right had also been claimed on 
the ground of the transfer, by the United States, of all their power and 
claims under the treaty of Hopewell, to Georgia, by the compact of 
1802. But did this relinquishment of the right of the United States 
to the soil and jurisdiction to the lands, purport to transfer a preexist- 
ing treaty with the Indians ? If it had been even so intended, it could 
not have been transferred. A guardian could not transfer his rights 
and duties at pleasure. By the constitution, Georgia had given to the 
United States the right to legislate in certain cases over her citizens for 
their benefit ; for example, to organize, arm, discipline, and call forth 
her militia. Could the United States transfer this right to South Caro- 
lina ? This right was required to be exercised by the United States 
" in congress assembled^ Could we, without the consent of the other 
party, strike out these words, and insert, the legislature of Georgia ? 
Again ; to see that this power was properly exercised, the treaty gave 
the Cherokees " the right to send a deputy of their choice, whenever 
they think fit, to congress.'''' Should he come here to watch over the 
legislation at Milledgeville ? 



522 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

But, though this power were transferable, it must be subject tc the 
restrictions and limitations expressed in the treaty; among which were 
these : 1st. That the Cherokees should continue to exist as a distinct 
political community, under the protection of the United States ; 2d. 
That they should enjoy the undisturbed possession of their lands ; 3d. 
That the power to manage " their affairs" should be exercised " for the 
benefit and comfort of the Indians ; and for the prevention of injuries 
and oppressions." But this did not give even the United States the 
right to drive them from their lands, or to strike the nation out of 
existence; and, instead of managing their affairs for their benefit, to 
annihilate them as a body politic. 

The gentleman had passed over in silence a most important event, the 
treaty of Holston, made in 1791, by which the United States had again 
promised to protect the Cherokees in their rights as a nation, in the 
following language : " The United States solemnly guaranty to the 
Cherokee nation all their lands not hereby ceded." If any right had 
been transferred to Georgia, it was such only as existed at the timC; and 
subject, of course, to the stipulations of the preexisting treaty. We 
were bound to see our treaties fulfilled. The Indians had inquired of 
us whether we would perform our promise of protection. Should we 
say we had conveyed that promise to another — to Georgia ? Would 
they not reply, that they had purchased our guaranty, and the protec- 
tion of our strong arm, for the very purpose of securing them against 
the encroachment of their white neighbors in that state ? 

As to the compact of 1802, between the United States and Georgia, 
the Cherokees not being parties to it, it could not impair their rights, 
nor confer upon others any claim against them. Besides, the compact 
expressly recognized the Indian title; and the United States agreed to 
extinguish it only when it could be done " peaceablj'^ " and on " reason- 
able terms." 

It had also been argued, that, before the revolution. Great Britain 
had had jurisdiction over the aborigines, and the sole right of treating 
with them, and that this power had been wrested from her by conquest 
during the war, and forever abandoned by the treaty of peace in 1783. 
If it had been obtained by conquest, it must have belonged to the con- 
querors. And who were the conquerors ? The United States, who were 
also a party to the treaty of peace. It was upon this ground that New 
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and other states so strongly insisted that 
the crown lauds, which had been acquired by the common arm, and at 
the common expense, belonged of right to the common fund. They suc- 
ceeded in their demand. The several states having such lands succes 
sively ceded them to the general government, Virginia taking the lead. 



DEBATE 0> THE '* INDIAN BILL." 523 

Mr. S. also combated the pretension of Georgia, that, on becoming 
independent, in 1776, she had succeeded to the right which Great Brit- 
ain had acquired by discovery. Discovftrj, he said, conferred no claim 
or right against the natives — the persons discovered. — but only against 
future discoverers. It was said, that the rights derived from 
this source had been established and defined in Europe, upon the 
first discovery of this country. True ; but it was by the mutual under- 
standiog and agreement of the nations of that continent only, in order 
to regulate their conduct among themselves. The sovereign who should 
find a country, theretofore unknown, should have the exclusive right to 
the benefits of the discovery, and to conduct toward the aboriginal inhab- 
itants according to his conscience and ability. 

The advocates of the bill had alleged, that the word treaty, in the 
constitution, did not mean a compact or contract with the Indian tribes. 
Mr. S. referred to a large number of instances to show that contracts 
with the Indians by Great Britian, from the first settlement of the 
country, as well as those made since, under the confederation and the 
constitution, had been called treaties. He had counted no less than one 
hundred and twenty-four Indian treaties^ formed under the present con- 
stitution. 

The following extracts from a speech of Gen. Washington to the 
Seneca Indians, in 1790, which were read by Mr. S., would show both 
the meaning of the word treaty, and the binding force of the contract to 
which it was applied, as understood by Washington. 

" I, the president of the United States, by my own mouth, and by a 
written speech signed with my own hand, and sealed with the seal of the 
United States, speak to the Seneca nation. 

" The general government only has the power to treat with the In- 
dian nations, and any treaty formed without its authority, will not be 
binding. 

" Here, then, is the security for the remainder of your lands. No 
state nor person can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty 
held under the authority of the United States. The general government 
will never consent to your being defrauded ; but it will protect you in all 
your just rights. 

" But your great object seems to be the security of your remaining 
lands ; and I have, therefore, upon this point, meant to be sufficiently 
strong and clear. 

" In future you can not be defrauded of your lands. You possess the 
right to sell, and the right of refusing to sell your lands. The United 
States must be present when you sell, and will be your security that you 
Bhall not be defrauded in the bargain you shall make. 



524 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

" You now know, that all the lands secured to you by the treaty of Fort 
Stauwix, excepting such parts as you may since have fairl}'^ sold, are 
yours, and that only your own acts can convey them away. Speak, there- 
fore, your wishes on the subject of tilling the ground. The United States 
will be happy to afford you every assistance in the only business which 
will add to your numbers and happiness. 

" The United States will be true and faithful to their engagements." 

Reference was made to the language as well as the acts of the authori- 
ties and representatives of the states upon which it was asserted these 
treaties were not obligatory, to show that they had themselves considered 
them binding. 

The bill passed by the senate, was taken up in the house, and committed 
to the committee of the whole, on the 26th of April, 1830. The debate 
commenced on the 13th of May, and closed on the 26th. Speeches in 
favor of the bill were made by Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, chairman of the 
committee on Indian affairs, and Messrs. Lumpkin, Foster, Wilde, La- 
mar, and Wayne, all of Georgia; against it, by Messrs. Storrs, of New 
York, Ellsworth and Huntington, of Connecticut, Evans, of Maine, 
Johns, of Delaware, Bates and Everett, of Massachusetts, and Test, of 
Indiana. In the house, as well as in the senate, the speeches were mainly 
argumentative ; some of them, however, containing fine specimens of 
eloquence. 

The vote on the passage of the bill, was 103 in favor of, and 97 against 
it. It had received some amendments in the house, which were concur- 
red in by the senate. 

The act appropriated $500,000 for carrying its provisions into effect. 
It provided for an exchange of lands ; those to which they should 
remove, to be guarantied to the Indians ; but if the Indians should be- 
come extinct, or should abandon the lands, they were to revert to the 
United States. The Indians were to be paid for the improvements on 
ohe lands they occupied ; to be assisted in their removal ; and to be sup- 
orted for a year thereafter. 

A treaty with the Choctaw Indians was concluded on the 27th of Sep- 
tember, 1830, by the secretary of war and Gen. Coffee. The Indians 
ceded their lauds, and agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi, within 
three years. Those who chose to remain, as citizens of Georgia, were to 
have reservations of laud for their use, and after residing upon them for 
five years, were to possess them in fee. The country was to be surveyed 
as soon as the government pleased, but no sale made previous to their 
removal; and intiuders were to be kept out. The government was also 
to use its good offices with the state of Mississippi to suspend the opera- 
tion of her laws, and with Alabama not to extend her laws into the na- 



THE CHEROKEES APPEAL. 525 

tion. Thoy were to be governed in their western residence by laws of 
their own, which, however, were not to be inconsistent with those of the 
United States. 

The Cherokees adhered to their determination not.to emigrate, and on 
the 1st of June, 1830, they found themselves tinder the operation of the 
laws of Georgia. On the 1 1th of September, the Cherokee Phoenix, (the 
Indian paper,) contained the proceedings of a meeting of Cherokees, to 
which was appended a very pathetic appeal to the citizens of the United 
States, complaining of the infringements upon their rights by the state of 
Georgia, and of the withdrawal of the protection of the government, on 
the part of the executive. However variant may have been the opinions 
of the people in regard to the rights of the Indians, there could scarcely 
have been a diflFerence of feeling on the perusal of their appeal, a few 
paragraphs of which we copy : 

" People of America, where shall we look? Republicans, we appeal 
to you. Christians, we appeal to you. We need the exertion of your 
strong arm. We need the utterance of your commanding voice. We 
need the aid of your prevailing prayers. In times past, your compas- 
sions yearned over our moral desolations,*and the misery which was 
spreading amongst us, through the failure of game, our ancient resource. 
The cry of our wretchedness reached your hearts ; you supplied us with 
the implements of husbandry and domestic industry, which enabled us 
to provide food and clothing for ourselves. You sent us instruction in 
letters and the true religion, which has chased away much of our mental 
and moral darkness. 

" Your wise president Jefferson took much pains to instruct us in the 
science of civilized government, and recommended the government of the 
United States and of the several states, as models for our imitation. He 
urged us to industry and the acquisition of property. His letter was 
read in our towns ; and we received it as the counsel of a friend. We 
commenced farming. We commenced improving our government; and, 
by gradual advances, we have attained our present station. But our ven- 
erable father Jefferson never intimated that, whenever we should arrive 
at a certain point in the science of government, and the knowledge of 
the civilized arts, then our rights should be forfeited ; our treaties be- 
come obsolete ; the protection guarantied by them withdrawn ; our pro- 
perty confiscated to lawless banditti, and our necks placed under the foot 
of Georgia. 

" It has been frequently asserted, that we are willing, and even desi- 
rous to go on to the west. We assure our friends that it is not so. We 
love our homes ; we love our families ; we love to dwell by our fathers' 
graves. We love to think that this land is our great Creator's gift to 



526 THE AinERICAN STATESMAN. 

them ; that he has permitted us to enjoy it after them ; and that our oflf- 
spring are preparing to fucceed us in the inheritance. This hand is our 
last refuge ; and it is our own. Our title to it has no defect but the in- 
feriority of our physical force ; and this defect is amply supplied by our 
compacts with the powerful and magnanimous government of the United 
States. * * * Much has been done against us. Promises, threats, and 
stratagems, have been employed. But we are still unshaken in our at- 
tachment to the land of our birth ; and we do solemnly protest against 
the exercise of oppressive measures to effect our removal." 

They had been ordered by the commanding officer of the United 
States troops to desist from digging for gold. In a letter of reply, they 
said : " The Cherokees respect the government and its officer ; but so 
firmly convinced are they of their rights and their privileges, that they 
are still disposed to continue their mining operations, and are perfectly 
resigned to such fate as the consequence of their honest labor upon their 
own lands may consign them to, under the laws of the United States." 

In October, Gov. Gilmer, of Georgia, in a letter to the president, re- 
quested him to withdraw from the Indian territory the United States' 
troops that had been sent thftre to enforce the non-intercourse law within 
the limits of the state, as it was " considered inconsistent with the rights 
of jurisdiction now exercised by its authorities." Before the letter 
reached the president, in view of the approach of winter, the troops had 
been ordered to retire into winter quarters ; of which the governor was 
officially informed. 

Having failed in their appeals to the government for protection, the 
Cherokees took measures to have their case submitted to the supreme 
court of the United States. In June, 1830, Mr. Wirt addressed a let- 
ter to Gov. Gilmer, informing him that he had been professionally con- 
sulted by the Cherokees as to their rights under their treaties with the 
United States, and suggested that a decision might be expedited, by 
making a case, by consent, before the supreme court. This the governor 
declined. In his reply, he ascribed the unwillingness of the remaining 
Cherokees to join those of the tribe who had removed, to an improper 
interference on the part of their friends, by whom they had been per- 
suaded that the right of self-government could be secured to them by the 
supreme court. He said: "So long as the Cherokees retained their 
primitive habits, no disposition was shown by the states under the pro- 
tection of whose government they resided, to make them subject to their 
laws. Such policy would have been cruel ; because it would have inter- 
fered with their habits of life, and the enjoyments peculiar to Indian 
people." He ascribed the change in their condition to the power of the 
whites among them ; and it was this state of things that had 



OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 527 

rendered it obligatory upon Georgia to vindicate her povereignty hj 
abolishing the Cherokee government. " No one," said he, " knows 
better than yourself, that the governor would grossly violate his duty, 
and exceed his authority, by complying with such a suggestion, (that of 
making up an " agreed case" before the court,) and that both the letter 
and the spirit of the powers conferred by the constitution upon the 
supreme court, forbid its adjudging such a case." 

George Tassels, an Indian, having committed a homicide in resisting 
the execution of the laws of Georgia, was tried, convicted of murder, 
and sentenced to be hanged. Before the day fixed for the execution of 
the sentence, the state of Georgia, pursuant to a writ of error obtained 
from the supreme court of the United States dated the 12th of Decem- 
ber, was cited to appear in January, and show cause why judgment 
against Tassels should not be corrected. The governor communicated 
the fact to the house of representatives, and the subject was referred to 
a committee, who reported resolutions, declaring the interference of the 
chief-justice in the administration of the criminal laws of Georgia to be 
a flagrant violation of her rights ; enjoining all state officers to disregard 
all such mandates of the court ; requiring the governor, by all force and 
means at his command, to resist and repel all invasions upon the admin- 
istration of the laws ; refusing to become a party to the case ; and au- 
thorizing the governor to order the sheriff to secure the execution of 
Tassels, which was accordingly done. 

In Marcb following, (1831,) a motion was made in the supreme court 
in the name of the Cherokee nation, praying for a process of subpoena 
against the state of Georgia, and for an injunction to restrain the state 
from executing her laws within the Cherokee territory, on the ground 
that the execution of such laws in the Indian territory was repugnant to 
the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. The question 
was most ably argued by John Sergeant and William Wirt, in favor of 
the motion. The opinion of the court was adverse to the application; 
the court disclaiming jurisdiction in the case, on the ground that the Cher- 
okee nation was not ^foreign nation in the sense of the constitution. 

The court admitted the character of the Cherokees to be that of a 
state, a distinct political society, capable of managing its own affairs 
and governing itself, of maintaining the relations of peace and war ; of 
being responsible for any violation of their engagements ; or for any 
aggressions committed on citizens of the United States, They had been 
uniformly so recognized by our treaties with them and by our laws. The 
counsel had shown that they were not a state of the union, and had 
insisted that they were individually aliens, not owing allegiance to the 
United States ; and that an aggregate of aliens must be a foreign state. 



528 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

But the court, though it conceded to the Indian tribes the attributes of 
a foreign nation, decided that they were not so recognized by the con- 
stitution ; but were to be considered as domestic, dependent nations, in 
a state of pupilage to the general government, and holding their terri- 
tory by right of occupancy. [A decision of the court as to the rights 
of the Indians was subsequently given in a case of acknowledged juris- 
diction, which will be found in a succeeding chapter.] 



CHAPTER XLII. 

WEST INDIA TRADE. MR. M'lANe's ARRANGEMENT. ^JOHN RANDOLPH S 

MISSION TO RUSSIA. 

The history, in a preceding chapter, of our protracted difficulties with 
Great Britain in regulating the colonial trade, was brought down to the 
year 1828, and left us in possession of the trade with her West India 
colonies through the Danish, Swedish, and other neutral islands. [See 
West India Trade.] It has been observed, that the loss of the direct 
trade with the British islands, to the great injury of the people of the 
United States, was charged upon the preceding administration ; ■ that they 
had neglected to accept, as a, privilege, advantages which they had persisted 
in claiming as a r?^A^; and that they might have obtained them by 
legislation, had they not relied too much on negotiation. It was to be 
expected, therefore, that the new administration would spare no effort 
to retrieve what had been lost by their predecessors. In this the public 
expectation was not disappointed. 

Mr. M'Lane, the new minister to England, received special instruc- 
tions in relation to the conduct of the negotiation on this " vexed ques- 
tion " of British colonial trade. He was directed to represent, that the 
American people, in effecting a change of administration, had testified 
their disapproval of the acts of the late administration, and that the 
claims set up by them which had caused the interruption of the trade 
in question, would not be urged : that is to say, that what had been 
injudiciously asked as a right, we were willing to receive as a boon ; and 
that the present administration should not be held responsible for the 
errors of their predecessors. 

In the summer of 1830, an arrangement was effected, similar to that 
proposed by the act of parliament of July, 1825. Congress, at the last 



WEST INDIA TRADE. 529 

session, in anticipation of some arrangement, or perhaps with a view of 
facilitating one, passed an act providing that, whenever the president 
should have evidence that Great Britain would open the ports of her 
West India and other American colonial possessions, to the vessels of 
the United States and their cargoes, on equal terms with her own coming 
from the United States, and would permit our vessels to export from 
her colonies to any country except the British dominions, on the same 
terms as British vessels; then the president was to announce the fact by 
proclamation; whereupon the ports of the United States were to be 
opened to British vessels from the colonies on the same terras as our own. 
And the order in council of the 27th of July, 1825, so abruptly issued 
on the arrival of Mr. Gallatin, was to be abolished. The proclamation 
was accordingly issued on the 5th of October, 1830. 

It was but natural that there should be great exultation on the part 
of the administration presses, on the consummation of an arrangement 
which had, as they said, baffled the diplomacy of our government for 
forty years. The recovery, " by the honest, high-minded, and straight 
forward administration of Andrew Jackson," of an unrestricted com- 
merce, temporarily enjoyed under the act of parliament of July, 1825, 
but "unwittingly and criminally thrown away by the blundering negoti- 
ation" of the preceding administration, was every where hailed as a most 
important and honorable achievement. Whether to mitigate the mortifica- 
tion caused by the triumph of the administration, or as the expression 
of an honest conviction, the opposition declared not only that the trade 
had not been lost, but that nothing had been gained by the arrangement. 
Our products were admitted into the neutral islands, and thence trans- 
shipped to the British islands; and the additional cost of this circuitous 
transportation, had fallen upon the British consumers. Under the new 
arrangement, our navigation, which had enjoyed the carrying trade, 
would be diminished by the competition of the British shipping, for 
which loss no equivalent would be received. 

Great Britain was not tardy in counteracting any advantages which 
the United States expected from a reciprocal trade. Produce coming 
into her West India ports directly from the United States, was subjected 
to exorbitant duties, but was admitted into the Canadian provinces 
and thence shipped to her West India islands in British vessels, free of 
duty, to the exclusion of American shipping. Also, the flour manufac- 
tured in Canada from American wheat, was considered as having 
changed its character, and was admitted free into England, as colonial 
produce. The duty, for example, on a barrel of flour from the United 
States into the British West India colonies, was 6s., or $1 33 ; but from 
the North American colonies, (the Canadas,) no duty was charged. On 

34 



530 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

1,000 feet of inch thick lumber, $7 ; from the British colonies free. 
And to evade the payment of duty even upon the produce conveyed in 
British vessels from our ports to the West India colonies, the same was 
first taken to the Canadian ports, and thence carried, as British produce 
to the islands without being subject to the duty paid by our vessels. 

A British paper remarked on this subject as follows : " The most 
important point secured by this new arrangement, is the carrying trade. 
British vessels may now proceed from any part of His Majesty's 
dominions, direct to the United States; there load a full cargo either 
for the West Indies direct, or by way of the provinces, as the nature 
of the cargo may invite, thus completing the whole voyage, a portion 
of which only American vessels would be eligible to perform." Another 
said, tauntingly : '' Jonathan, after all, will not find the great boon 
so good a thing as he expected, under the existing restrictions." And 
another : " We only allow their vessels to bring to our ports the pro- 
duce and manufactures of the United States : they make their ports 
free to our commerce in every sense of the word." 

The effect of the new arrangement upon our tonnage, appeared from 
the oflScial statements of the treasury for 1830 and 1831. American 
tonnage entering the ports of the United States during the year ending 
September 30th, 1830, from the British West Indies, was 22,428 tons; 
from the British American colonies, 130,527 tons: total, 152,955. 
In 1831, from the former, 38,046 tons; from the latter, 92,672: 
total, 130,718. Decrease of American tonnage, 22,428. British 
tonnage, entering our ports in 1830, from British West Indies, 182 
tons; from British American colonies, 4,002 tons: total, 4,184. In 
1831, from the former, 23,760 tons; from the latter, 82,557: total, 
106,317. Increase, 102,133. 

Essential benefit, however, was derived by the states bordering on 
the Canadas, from the admission of American produce into the Canadian 
ports, free, without any adverse effect, except some diminution of the 
revenues of the Erie canal, caused by the diversion of produce to the 
Canadian market. 

In 1830, John Randolph was appointed minister to Russia, as suc- 
cessor to Mr. Henry Middleton, who had been appointed by Mr. Mon- 
roe, in 1820. At the session of 1830-31, the appropriation bill being 
under consideration, Mr. Stanbery, of Ohio, moved to strike out the 
appropriation for the salary of the minister to Russia for that year. 
Mr. R. had been but nine days at St. Petersburgh, when he was com- 
pelled, by ill health, to leave that rigorous climate ; and he was then 
supposed to be residing in England or France. The mover advocated 
his motion on the principles which brought Gen. Jackson into office, 



JOHN Randolph's mission to Russia. 531 

and alluded to the clamor during the preceding administration about 
the profligate expenditure of the public money and constructive jour- 
neys. A change of administration had been urged to correct these 
abuses. Perhaps a more substantial objection was that urged by Mr. 
Burges — the character and terms of the mission. Mr. Randolph, 
though possessing talents of a peculiar kind, was not generally sup- 
posed to be well fitted for a diplomatic office. His health was known 
to be insufficient ; and he was authorized to leave Russia, if the state 
of his health should require it. 

Mr. Randolph was noted for his eccentricities. His conduct at St. 
Petersburgh was represented to have been such as to excite suspicions 
of insanity. His singular deportment and strange appearance, on being 
presented to the emperor and empress, were said to have thrown the 
latter and her attendants into a fit of laughter. He was said also to 
have shown his private papers — his correspondence with the president 
and secretary of state — urging him to accept the appointment. On his 
departure, he left the affairs of the United States in the charge of John 
Randolph Clay, his secretary of legation, who was said to be a minor, 
about 20 years of age. 

Mr. Archer opposed the motion of Mr. Stanbery. If it should be 
adopted, not only would the professed object, the recall of the present 
minister, be effected ; the mission to the Russian court would be 
entirely interdicted : for, without an appropriation, no minister could 
be maintained. The debate upon this comparatively unimportant 
question continued several weeks, no doubt to the injury of other pub- 
lic business, when, as was expected, the motion was lost. 

An inquiry into the condition and management of the post-office 
department was authorized in the senate, and resulted in the discovery 
of transactions which reflected discredit upon the administration of that 
department. Mr. Grundy ofiered a resolution prohibiting the commit- 
tee from calling, as witnesses, persons removed from office by the 
department, to testify as to the causes of their removal. This resolu- 
tion, after considerable debate, and some modification, was adopted. 

On the 3d of March, Mr. Clayton, from the select committee on this 
subject, made a report; from which it appeared certain additional 
allowances, without warrant of law, had been made to contractors by 
the department, and erroneously entered on the books as having been 
made by Abraham Bradley, senior assistant postmaster-general, who 
acted as postmaster-general for a few days after Mr. M'Lean left the 
office, and before its duties were assumed by Mr. Barry. 

A call had been made at the preceding session for copies of contracts 
made by the postmaster-general or his predecessor, upon which extra 



532 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

allowances had been made; but no answer had been received until 
some time in February of the present session, after the long delay had 
been complained of as evidence of a design to baffle inquiry into the 
concerns of the deparknent. It appeared, that, in thirty-six cases, 
some of them gross violations of law, the allowances were falsely set 
down as having been made by Mr. Bradley. The documents showed 
that the name of Mr. Barry had been originally written ; but had been 
" rubbed out," and that of Mr. Bradley inserted. Mr. B., soon after 
he had been removed from office, had, by letter, informed the president 
of some of these, cases; and as the statements of the letter had been 
sworn to, the tendency of the falsification of the documents, if unde- 
tected, was to convict Mr. B. of swearing falsely. It was thought pro- 
per, therefore, that the report should be printed. After some debate, 
the question on suspending the printing of the report was decided in the 
affirmative. 

An attempt was made at this session, by the ultra friends of " state 
rights" to repeal or modify the 25th section of the judiciary act, passed 
in 1789, one of the earliest acts of congress under the constitution. 
This assault upon that act was supposed to have been suggested by the 
discussion of the powers of the general and state governments, in which 
had been claimed for the supreme court the power to decide upon the 
validity of acts of congress, and by the intended reference of the Chero- 
kee case to that tribunal for decision. 

The subject was referred to the judiciary committee, a majority of 
whom, Messrs. Davis, of South Carolina, Foster, of Georgia, Gordon, of 
Virginia, and Daniel, of Kentucky, reported a bill for the repeal of 
the. said section, on the ground of its unconstitutionality. The report 
assumed substantially the same ground as Mr. Hayne and others in 
1830. It invoked the authority of the Virginia and Kentucky reso- 
lutions ; denied the supremacy of the national judiciary ; and asserted 
the entire independence of the state courts. It declared, that " the 
power, by citation or writ of error, to take a case after judgment, from 
a state court, and to remove it, for final determination, to the supreme 
federal court, is a much greater outrage upon the fundamental principles 
of theoretical and practical liberty, as established here, than the odious 
writ of quo warranto^ as it was used in England by a tyrannical king to 
destroy the rights of corporations." 

A counter report was made by the minority of the committee, viz. : 
Messrs. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, Ellsworth, of Connecticut, and 
White, of Louisiana, and was written, probably, by Mr. Buchanan, who 
was chairman of the judiciary committee. This report urged against 
the repeal, the necessity of an appeal from state courts to the federal 



TRIAL OF A DISTRICT JUDGE BY IMPEACHMENT. 533 

court, to Sv,cure to individuals important rights. Individual states were 
liable to high excitements and strong prejudices; and judges of state 
courts would participate in the feelings of the communities around them. 
The judges of the federal coart residing in different states, and remote 
from each other, were not subject to local prejudices and excitements. 

Another reason offered for preserving this section was, to secure a 
uniform interpretation of the constitution, laws and treaties of the United 
States. If the courts of each of the states had the power of deciding, 
in the last resort, upon the constitution and laws, there might be a dif- 
ferent construction of them in every state ; and rights secured to the 
citizens of one state, might be denied to the citizens of another state. It 
was urged, too, and with much force, that the repeal of this section would 
endanger the union. The chief evil of the confederation, and that 
which gave birth to the constitution, was, that the general government 
could not act directly upon the people : the constitution was intended to 
enable the general government to act immediately upon the stat^, and 
to carry its own laws into execution. There was a higher authority in 
this country than that of sovereign states ; it was that of the sovereign 
people of each state : they had, in their state conventions, ratified the 
constitution of the United States ; and the states were bound by it. 
Other arguments were adduced by the minority, in favor, both of the 
expediency and constitutionality of this section of the judiciary act, in 
authorizing appeals from the state courts to the national court. 

This attack upon the supreme court, designed to remove a strong bar- 
rier to nullification, met with a signal failure. The bill for the repeal 
was rejected by a vote of 138 to 51. It received but 6 votes from the 
northern states : Jarvis, of Maine, Chandler and Harvey, of New Hamp- 
shire, Angel, Cambreleng and Maxwell, of New York. Delaware and 
Maryland were unanimous against the repeal. Of the 25 members 
absent, a majority were said to be opposed to the bill. 

Among the earliest business of the session of 1830-31, was the trial 
of James H. Peck, a judge of the district court of the United States, 
for the district of Missouri, on an impeachment by the house of repre- 
sentatives at the preceding session ; the trial having been adjourned. 
The senate was organized into a court of impeachment on the 13th of 
December, 1830. The case was managed, on the part of the house, by 
Messrs. Buchanan, M'Duffie, Judge Spencer, Storrs, and Wickliffe. 

Under an act of congress "enabling the claimants to lands within the 
limits of the state of Missouri and territory of Arkansas, to institute 
proceedings to try the validity of their claims," a suit was brought before 
judge Peck, and decided against the claimants, who appealed from the 
deci'ce of the judge to the supreme court of the United States. Judge 



534 THE AMEPaCAN STATESMAN. 

Peck having caused bis opiniou and the reasons for the same to be pub- 
lished, the counsel for the claimants, Luke E. Lawless, procured the 
publication of a review of the judge's opinion, purporting to expose cer- 
tain errors which it was alleged to contain. At a subsequent term of 
the court, the judge caused the imprisonment of Lawless for a contempt 
thereof, for one day, and suspended him from professional practice in 
that court for eighteen months. The judge was impeached for an alleged 
abuse of judicial authority, the publica'tion of Lawless not being deemed 
harsh or disrespectful. 

Judge Peck was defended by Mr. Meredith, of Philadelphia, and Mr. 
Wirt. It was shown that the opinion of the judge had been published 
at the request of the members of the bar, and of those persons who 
were interested in the case ; and such publications were usual both in 
England and the United States. The case in question was a select and 
test cause, and an adverse decision would produce dissatisfaction in all 
other .claimants. The respondent considered the publication a gross and 
palpable misrepresentation of his opinion. Lawless had an opportunity 
offered him, on his defense, of clearing himself of intentional disrespect, 
but had refused to answer the interrogatories of the judge, and reas- 
serted the allegations of his publication. The cause was ably argued by 
Messrs. M'Duffie, Buchanan, Spencer, Storrs, and Wickliffe, in favor of 
the impeachment, and by Messrs. Meredith and Wirt against it. The 
speeches of Mr. Storrs and Mr. Wirt were spoken of as surpassingly 
eloquent. The judge was acquitted : 21 votes to sustain the impeach- 
ment ; 24 against. A majority of two-thirds is necessary to a con- 
viction. 

The result of this trial, however, led to the passage of a law at the 
same session, limiting the power of judges, under the authority of the 
English common law doctrine, in punishing for contempt of court. The 
act restricted this power to cases of misbehavior in the presence of 
courts, or so near them as to obstruct the administration of justice; and 
to the ofl&cial misbehavior of officers of the courts. 

A revision of the tariff having been recommended by the president in 
his annual message, the committee on manufactures, of which Mr. Mal- 
lary was chairman, made a report dissenting from some of the views 
of the president. The committee contrasted the sentiments of the mes- 
sage with those previously declared by him on this subject. He had 
said, that " the power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to 
the states. This authority having entirely passed from the states, the 
right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them ; 
and, consequently, if it be not possessed by the general government, it 
must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly 



REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 535 

of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to 
counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted 
by foreign nations." 

In the message, the president says : " The chief object of duties should 
be revenue :" but " they may be so adjusted as to encourage manufac- 
tures." Also, that " objects of national importance alone ought to be 
protected;" that "the present tariff taxes some of the comforts of life 
unnecessarily high ; it undertakes to protect interests too local and 
minute to justify a general exaction ; and it also attempts to force some 
kinds of manufactures for which the country is not ripe :" and he 
recommends that each particular interest be taken up " singly for delibe- 
ration." 

These, and several other points in the message, are discussed by the 
committee. The first they considered as being " in plain collision with 
the sentiments he had previously maintained." He had admitted the 
power to " foster " our industry ; in regard to which the committee say : 
" If revenue alone is wanted, duties for that object should be imposed. 
Ji protection to domestic industry is required, let duties be imposed to 
'■foster it.' Why should the chief object be revenue ? Why protection 
secondary, when the treasury may be full ? Then they should be ad- 
justed to secure protection. This should be the primary object. The 
protecting power having once belonged to the states, and having been 
transferred to the general government, it may be used as the good of the 
nation demands, for a ^9?•^m«r?/, not a secondary object." 

The general expressions: "objects of national importance;" "some 
of the comforts of life ;" " interests too local ;" " some kinds of manu- 
factures for which the country is not ripe," the committee thought, 
afforded no aid in adjusting the details of a protecting tariff. Little dif- 
ference of opinion existed as to abstract principles ; the difliculty con- 
sisted in applying theory to practical and useful purpose. In this, 
individuals differed in opinion. Congress had not been unmindful of 
these objects, and no material change, it was thought, was demanded. 

The committee adverted to some of the most essential " comforts of 
life," as cotton goods, nails, hats, caps, shoes, boots, cheese, &c., as fur- 
nishing evidence, that, in all cases where the material is found at home, 
and the protecting duty had been adequate, the domestic article had be 
come cheaper. The duty secured the market to the home manufacturer 
and domestic competition reduced the cost to the lowest possible price, 
and at the same time improved the quality. The committee also objected 
decidedly to the suggestion of submitting each interest " singly for de- 
liberation," without reference to a general system. By such a rule, they 
believed, no protecting system had ever been adopted, and by it none 



536 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

could stand ; and they apprehended, that an attempt to disturb the tariff 
which had been so recently revised, would " spread alarm among the 
great interests of the country, shake confidence in the plighted faith of 
the government, and expose the whole country to the dangers of a most 
selfish policy which might be adopted by foreign nations." 



CHAPTER XLIII. 

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON IN RELATION 
TO OCCURRENCES IN THE SEMINOLE WAR. 

In the winter of 1830-31, Mr. Calhoun, vice-president of the United 
States, appeared before the public in an address, accompanied by a cor- 
respondence between himself and Gen. Jackson, in relation to the course 
of Mr. Calhoun in the deliberations of the cabinet of Mr. Monroe, on 
the occurrences of the Seminole war. His object was to expose an 
attempt to effect his " political destruction" by creating a disaffection 
between Gen. Jackson and himself The " secret movement " against 
him commenced, as he conceived, with certain letters of Mr. Crawford to 
different persons, representing that Mr. Calhoun had been opposed to 
the conduct of Gen. Jackson in the Florida war, and in cabinet council 
had proposed " that Gen. Jackson should be punished in some form, or 
reprehended in some form," he was not positively certain which. 

Mr. Crawford, in a letter to Mr. Forsyth, April 30, 1830, gives as an 
apology for disclosing what passed in this cabinet meeting, that an ex- 
tract of a certain letter had been published in a Nashville paper, alleging 
that he (Mr. C.) " had proposed to arrest Gen. Jackson, but that he was 
triumphantly defended by Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Adams; " and Mr. Craw- 
ford expresses the belief, that the letter had been written by Mr. Cal- 
houn, or by his directions. Mr. Crawford farther says : " Mr. Calhoun 
made some allusion to a letter the general had written to the president, 
who had forgotten that he had received such a letter ; but said, if he 
had, he could find it ; and went directly to his cabinet and brought the 
letter out. In it Gen. Jackson approved of the determination of the 
government to break up Amelia island and Galveztown, and gave 
it also as his opinion that the Floridas ought to be taken by the 
United States. He added, that it might be a delicate' matter for 
the executive to decide ; but if the president approved of it, he had only 



MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON ON THE SEMINOLE WAR. 537 

to give a hint to some confidential member of congress, say Johnny Ray, 
and he would do it, and take the responsibility upon himself. I asked 
the president if the letter had been answered. He replied, no ; for he 
had no recollection of having received it. I then said that I had no 
doubt that Gen. Jackson, in taking Pensacola, believed he was doing 
what the executive wished. After that letter was produced, unanswered, 
I should have opposed the infliction of punishment upon the general, who 
had considered the silence of the president as a tacit consent. Yet it 
was after this letter was produced and read, that Mr. Calhoun made his 
proposition to the cabinet for punishing the general." 

The above having been placed in the hands of Gen. Jackson, he imme- 
diately wrote to Mr. Calhoun, (May 13, 1830,) expressing his surprise 
at the course taken by him in the cabinet, so contrary to what had been 
indicated in his correspondence at that time, and referred to the letter 
of Mr. Calhoun, as secretary of war, to Gov. Bibb, of Alabama, of the 
13th of May, 1818, saying: "Gen. Jackson is vested with full power 
to conduct the war in the manner he may judge best;" and also to his 
letters to him (Gen. J.,) in one of which he had said : " I have the honor 
to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, and to 
acquaint you with the entire approbation of the president of all the 
measures you have adopted to terminate the rupture with the Indians." 
The general desired to know whether he (Mr. C.) had made the proposi- 
tion imputed to him by Mr. Crawford. 

As will readily be seen, there was involved in this controversy a ques- 
tion of veracity between Crawford and Calhoun. The former had repre- 
sented the latter as having attempted to get the general punished. Gen. 
Jackson, on the strength of this statement of Mr. Crawford, accuses Mr. 
Calhoun of duplicity. Mr. Calhoun denies the truth of the charge, and 
in his reply to the letter of Gen. Jackson, endeavors to prove that neither 
himself nor Mr. Monroe considered him authorized to occupy the Span- 
ish posts. He says : " To save you the trouble of turning to the file of 
your correspondence, I have inclosed extracts from the letters, which 
clearly prove, that the decision of the cabinet on the point that your 
orders did not authorize the occupation of St. Marks and Pensacola, was 
early and fully made known to you ; and that I, in particular, concurred 
in the decision. 

" Mr. Monroe's letter of the i9th of July, 1818, the first of the series, 
and written immediately after the decision of the cabinet, enters fully 
into the views taken by the executive of the whole subject. In your 
reply of the 19th of August, 1818, you object to the construction which 
the administration had placed on your orders, and you assign your reasons 
at large, why you conceived that the orders under which you acted author 



538 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ized your operations in Florida. Mr. Monroe replied en the 20tli of 
October, 1818; and after expressing his regret that you had placed a 
construction upon your orders different from what was intended, he 
invited you to open a correspondence with me, that your conception of 
the meaning of the orders, and that of the administration, might be 
placed, with the reasons on both sides, on the files of the war department. 
Your letter of the 15 th of November, in answer, agrees to the corres- 
pondence as proposed, but declines commencing it, to which Mr. Monroe 
replied by a letter of the 21st of December, stating his reasons for sug- 
gesting the correspondence, and why he thought that it ought to commence 
with you." Mr. Calhoun also refers to the message of the president to the 
house of representatives of the 25th of March, 1818, and his annual message 
in November following, as containing evidence of his having considered the 
occupation of the posts unauthorized. And he proceeds in attempting 
to show, that in his letter to Gov. Bibb, saying that the general had 
power " to conduct the war in the manner he might judge best," he 
could not have meant that he had authority to occupy the Spanish posts. 
Nor could certain other letters be justly interpreted into such authority. 

Speaking of the letter of Gen. Jackson to Mr. Monroe, mentioned by 
Mr. Crawford in his letter to Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Calhoun said it was not 
received till several weeks after the orders to the general had been issued, 
and could not, therefore, have had any influence in drawing them up ; nor 
could the general have supposed so, as he had not referred to it as form- 
ing a part of his justification. Mr. C. adds : " You rested your defense 
on what I conceive to be much more elevated ground — on the true con- 
struction, as you supposed, of your orders, and the necessity of the meas- 
ures which you adopted to terminate the war, and not on any supposed 
secret wish of the executive in opposition to the public orders under 
which you acted." 

The reply of the president to the letter of Mr. Calhoun was brief. He 
said it had been intimated to him many years ago, that it had been he, 
(Mr. Calhoun,) and not Mr. Crawford, who had been secretly endeavoring 
to destroy his reputation; but he had repelled the insinuations upon the 
ground of his professed frieudshiji, and upon his letters approving cviifzVe/y 
his condvict in the Seminole campaign. He adds : " When I Avas pre- 
sented with a copy of Mr. Crawford's letter, with that frankness which 
ever has, and I hope ever will characterize my conduct, I considered it 
due to you, and the friendly relations which had alwaj's existed between 
us, to lay it forthwith before you, and ask if the statements in that letter 
could be true. I repeat, I had a riglit to believe that you were my sin- 
cere friend, and until now, never expected to have occasion to say to you, 
in the languacje of Cajsar, Et tu Brute. The evidence which has brought 



MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON ON THE SEMINOLE WAR. G39 

me to this conclusion, is abundantly contained in your letter now before 
me. In your and Mr. Crawford's dispute, I Lave no interest whatever ; 
but it may become necessary for me hereafter, when I shall have more 
leisure, and the documents at hand, to place the subject in its proper 
light ; to notice the historical facts and references in your communication, 
which will give a very dilFerent view of this subject." 

It is perhaps necessary here to observe, that, although Mr. Calhoun 
does not in express terms so declare, he considered his meditated " poli- 
tical destruction" as having originated with Mr. Van Buren and his 
political friends with a view to his own advancement; and he regarded 
Mr. Crawford as one of the principal agents in the conspiracy, who com- 
menced writing his secret letters as early as 1827. That Mr. Van Buren 
was suspected of having been the instigator of the " movement," was well 
known at the time ; and appears farther from a letter of Mr. Lumpkin, of 
Georgia, to Mr. Calhoun, in which he uses epithets, by which Mr. Van Buren, 
as a politician, was very generally designated by his opponents. He con- 
sidered it the duty of " every patriotic citizen to frown indignantly upon 
all intriguers, managers, political jugglers, and selfish politicians, of 
every description, who are disposed to divide and conquer." 

Mr. Calhoun published also the private correspondence, in 1821, 
between president Monroe and Gen. Jackson on the Seminole affair, to 
show that Mr. Monroe considered the occupation of the Spanish posts a 
violation of orders. Says Mr. Monroe : " In calling you into active ser- 
vice against the Seminoles, and communicating to you the orders which 
had been given just before to Gen. Gaines, the views and intentions of 
the government were fully disclosed in respect to the operations in 
Florida. In transcending the limit prescribed by those orders, you acted 
on your own responsibility, on facts and circumstances which were un- 
known to the government when the orders were given, many of which, 
indeed, occurred afterwards, and which you thought imposed on you the 
measure, as an act of patriotism, essential to the honor and interests of 
your country." 

Mr. Monroe considered himself justified by the law of nations in order- 
ing troops into Florida in pursuit of the enemy, who eluded pursuit by 
entering into that country. This was not an act of hostility to Spain ; 
and it was the less so, because her government was bound to restrain the 
Indians from committing hostilities against the United States. " But 
an order by the government," says Mr. Monroe, "to attack a Spanish 
post, would assume another character. It would authorize war, to which, 
by the principles of our constitution, the executive is incompetent." 
And to avoid giving cause of war, by making the government responsible 
for the act, he had ordered the surrender of the posts. 



540 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Gen. Jackson, in reply, justifies himself on the ground, " that an oi der, 
generally, to perform a certain service, or effect a certain object, without 
any specification of the means to be adopted, or limits to govern the exe- 
cutive officer, leaves an entire- discretion with the officer, as to the choice 
and application of the means, but preserves the responsibility for his acts 
on the authority from which the order emanated." 

In answer to this, Mr. Monroe says : " I am sorry to find that you 
understood your instructions relative to operations in Florida differently 
from what we intended. I was satisfied, however, that you had good 
reasons for your conduct, and have acted in all things on that principle. 
By supposing that you understood them as we did, I concluded that you 
proceeded on your own responsibility alone, in which, knowing the 
purity of your motives, I have done all that I could to justify the meas- 
ure." He then advises the general to write a letter to the department, 
stating his views of the instructions under which he had acted ; and says : 
" This will be answered, so as to explain ours, in a friendly manner, by 
Mr. Calhoun, who has very just and liberal sentiments oil the subject. 
This will be necessary in the case of a call for papers by congress. 
Thus we shall all stand on the ground of honor, each doing justice 
to the other, which is the ground on which we wish to place each 
other." 

The correspondence in Mr. Calhoun's pamphlet is so exceedingly 
voluminous that we cannot refer to a tithe of the letters it contains. 
The object of its publication seems to be, not only to exculpate himself 
from the charge of duplicity preferred against him by Gen. Jackson, but 
to convict Mr. Crawford either of the same, or of direct falsehood, or of 
both. To this effect, he introduces several letters. The first in order 
is from Mr. M'Duffie, dated May 14, 1830 ; who says, that he heard Mr. 
Crawford (in 1818) state, in conversation with Eldred Simpkins, that 
himself and Mr. Calhoun were the only members of the cabinet in favor 
of an inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Jackson. He also disapproved 
the course of the general in forestalling public opinion, in prematurely 
bringing the grounds of his defense before the country, and thus anti- 
cipating the administration. And in reference to an article in the 
National Intelligencer which laid down a principle of the law of nations 
going to show, that a neutral territory could only be invaded in fresh 
pursuit of an enemy, Mr. Crawford said : " Mr. Adams denies all that;" 
and he represented Mr. Adams as going farther in justifying Gen. Jack- 
son than even Mr. Monroe, stating " that the latter was induced to pass 
over the conduct of Gen. Jackson without public censure, not from a 
belief that he had not violated his orders, and exceeded his power, but 
from political considerations connected with our relations with Spain " 



ME.. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON ON THE SEMINOLE WAR, 541 

Mr. Robert S Garnett, formerly a member of congress from Virginia, 
says, in his letter of Jan. 12, 1831, that, in a conversation ■wi:h Mr. 
Monroe, in the winter of 1819, the latter declared, that there had been 
no division in the cabinet, as to the course which should be pursued 
towards the general. " This," said Mr. Garnett, " excited my astonish- 
ment, because, iu a conversation with Mr. Crawford, either before the 
debate commenced, or while it was pending, Mr. Crawford had used this 
expression to me : ' General Jackson ought to be condemned.' I noted 
this expression down in a journal I kept, and subsequently repeated it 
frequently. Mr. C. Beverly told me that he had mentioned it to Gen. 
Jackson, when he was at his bouse in Tennessee, and, I think, said that 
the general expressed much surprise." 

Mr. Calhoun also controverts the statement of Mr. Crawford in rela- 
tion to the private letter alluded to by Mr. Calhoun in the cabinet 
meeting before mentioned, and gives letters from Mr. Monroe and Mr 
Wirt, both of whom express the opinion that the letter was not before 
the cabinet. The former says he received the letter when sick in bed, 
and could not read it, and handed it to Mr. Calhoun for perusal, who 
after reading it, said it would require an answer. Mr. Crawford coming 
in soon afterwards, Mr. Monroe handed it to him also for perusal ; who 
remarked that it related to the Seminole war. Mr. M. being some time 
confined by indisposition, the letter was laid aside and forgotten by him, 
and not read, until after the conclusion of the war ; and he then did it 
on an intimation from Mr. Calhoun that it required his attention. 

Mr. Wirt said, (May 28, 1830,) the letter from Gen. Jackson to Mr. 
Monroe, was new to him. He thought if such a letter had been exhib- 
ited at the meeting, he could not have forgotten it. Nor had he any 
recollection thsit pu?iishment had been proposed by any one, unless an 
inquiry into the official conduct of the general could be regarded as 
punishment. And he thought the singular fact of the general's only 
asking for a positive hint of the president's approbation, through " some 
confidential member of congress, say Johnny Ray," would have tended 
to fix the occurrence in his memory. 

Mr. James A. Hamilton, of New York, in a statement published in 
the New York Evening Post, Feb. 22, 1831, says, that, during the 
winter of 1827 and '28, he accompanied Gen. Jackson and suit from 
Nashville to New Orleans ; and much having been said in relation to 
the charges against Gen. Jackson which had been renewed, and partic- 
ularly as to the unfriendly course Mr. Crawford was supposed to have 
taken towards the general in relation to the Seminole war, he, (Mr. 
Hamilton,) returning through Georgia to New York, purposed calling 
on Mr. Crawford, and ascertaining what had occurred in Mr. Monroe's 



542 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

cabinet deliberations. But Mr. Crawford's residence being so far out 
of the way, he did not visit him. He, however, wrote to Mr. Forsyth, 
and requested him when he should meet Mr. Crawford, to show him his 
letter, and communicate the result to him at New York. Mr. Hamil- 
ton says farther, that, on his arrival at Washington, in an interview with 
Mr. Calhoun on the subject, he asked him, (Mr. C.,) " whether at any 
meeting of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, the propriety of arresting Gen. Jack- 
son, for any thing done by him during the Seminole war, had been at 
any time discussed." To which Mr. Calhoun replied : " Never: such a 
measure was not thought of, much less discussed. The only point 
before the cabinet was the answer that was to be given to the Spanish 
government." 

Connected with the statement of Mr. Hamilton, is a letter from Mr. 
Forsyth, dated in February, 1828, in answer to that of the former 
written from Savannah on his way to New York, which Mr. F. had, 
agreeably to his request, shown to Mr. Crawford, who had authorized 
him to say, that, at the meeting of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, Mr. Calhoun 
had " urged upon the president the propriety and necessity of arresting 
and trying Gen. Jackson. Mr. Monroe was very much annoyed by it ; 
expressed a belief that such a step would not meet tlie public approba- 
tion ; that Gen, Jackson had performed too much public service to be 
created as a younger or subaltern officer might be, without shocking 
public opinion. Mr. Adams spoke with great violence against the pro- 
posed arrest, and justified the general throughout, vehemently urging 
the president to make the cause of the general that of the administra- 
tion. Mr. Crawford suggested that there was no necessity for deciding 
upon the course to be pursued towards the general, as the question for 
which the cabinet was convened, did not require it ; they were called to 
determine how Spain was to be treated in relation to the Florida affair. 
* * * Mr. Calhoun had previously communicated to Mr. Crawford 
his intention to present the question to Mr. Monroe; an intention Mr. 
Crawford approved, although not believing, as he stated to Mr Calhoun, 
that Gen. Jackson would be either arrested or censured by tbepresident." 

Drawn out by the letter of Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Calhoun 
addresses the editor of the United States Telegraph, requesting the 
publication of a statement, as supplemental to his correspondence with 
Gen. Jackson. In reference to the remark attributed to him by Mr. 
Hamilton, that " the only point before the cabinet was the answer to be 
given to the Spanish government," he says : " I neither did nor could 
use the expression ' only,' as it would have been both inconsistent with 
facts and absurd, as the publications on the Seminole affair clearly indi- 
cate that other points were considered by the cabinet. If the statement 



MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON ON THE SEMINOLi: WAR. 543 

be an error on the part of Mr. Hamilton, it probably originated in my 
usino- the words ' main point or real point,' or some other expression of 
similar import." 

The statement concludes thus : " The argument of Mr. Crawford in 
support of his statement of the proceedings of the cabinet, rested almost 
exclusively on the statement of Mr. Crowuinshield and Mr. Adams. A 
subsequent acknowledgment of the former that he was not present, . . . 
and, consequently, that his statement to Mr. Crawford is unfounded, and 
the fact disclosed by the letter of Mr. Adams to me, published with the 
correspondence, that Mr. Crawford has given in his letter a garbled 
extract of Mr. Adams' statement to him, omitting the material point, 
removed the foundation of his argument; and with it, the superstructure 
which he raised, fell to the ground. * * * Unpleasant as I find my 
situation, I experience one consolation, without which it would be 
intolerable. I have been placed in it by no fault of my own. Little 
did I suspect, more than twelve years ago, when daring to construe 
orders which I myself had drawn, and to which I could give no other 
construction than what I did, consistently with the constitution, acting 
as I was, under the obligation of an oath to abstain from the infraction 
of that sacred instrument; and in venturing to suggest the course which 
I honestly supposed ought to be adopted on their infraction, I should 
be exposed, at this late day, to so much difficulty and danger. Yet this 
is my only offense." 

Suspicion having been cast upon Mr. Van Buren as having instigated 
the attack upon the vice-president, that gentleman transmitted, (Feb. 
25, 1831',) to the editor of the United States Telegraph, for publication, 
a note, disclaiming all agency in the affair, and pronouncing every as- 
sertion or insinuation designed to impute to him any participation in 
attempts supposed to have been made in 1827 and 1828, to prejudice 
the vice-president in the good opinion of Gen. Jackson, or at any time, 
to be alike unfounded and unjust. 

The intimation of Gen, Jackson in his letter to Mr. Calhoun, that, 
at some future day, " when he had more leisure, and the documents at 
hand," he might " place the subject in its proper light," was never car- 
ried into effect — so far, at least, as regards the j^'^^^blication of any de- 
fense. We are informed, however, by Mr. Benton, in his " Thirty 
Years' View," recently published, that a reply was soon after drawn up, 
giving a full exposition of the affair. This " Exposition " it appears, 
was intended for immediate publication ; but was delayed, as Mr. Ben- 
ton says, from a feeling of repugnance to the exhibition of a chief magis- 
trate as a newspaper writer, until after the expiration of his office, and 
afterwards until his death. Being placed into the hands of Mr. Benton 



544 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

it has at length found its way before the public — at least that part of it 
which relates more particularly to the matter in coutroversj'. 

Gen. Jackson refers to the orders given, from time to time, to Gen, 
Gaines and himself, the most material of which have been given in our 
account of the Seminole campaign, in a preceding chapter. Mr. Cal- 
houn's understanding of these orders was to be inferred from his letter 
to Gov. Bibb, in May, 1818, in which he says: " Gen. Jackson is vested 
with full power to conduct the war as he may think best." Having re- 
ceived copies of the orders to Gen. Gaines to take possession of Amelia 
island, and to enter Florida, but halt and report to the department, in 
case the Indians should shelter themselves under a Spanish fort, he ad- 
dressed to Mr. Monroe the letter to which reference has been made in 
the ' correspondence.' We copy it entire : 

" Nashville, 6th Jan., 1818. 

" Sir : — A few days since, I received a letter from the secretary of 
war, of the 17th ult., with icclosures. Your order of the 19th ult., 
through him to Brevet Major-General Gaines, to enter the territory of 
Spain, and chastise the ruthless savages who have been depredating upon 
the property and lives of our citizens, will meet not only the approba 
tion of your country, but the approbation of Heaven. Will you, how- 
ever, permit me to suggest the catastrophe that might arise by Gen. 
Gaines' compliance with the last clause of your order ? Suppose the 
case that the Indians are beaten : they take refuge either in Pensacola 
or St. Augustine, which open their gates to them : to profit by his vic- 
tory. Gen. Gaines pursues the fugitives, and has to halt before <the gar- 
rison until he can communicate with his government. In the mean 
time the militia grow restless, and he is left to defend himself by tho 
regulars. The enemy, with the aid of their Spanish friends, and Wood- 
bine's British partisans, or, if you please, with Aurey's force, attacks 
him. What may not be the result ? Defeat and massacre. Permit me to 
remark, that the arms of the United States must be carried to any point 
within the limits of East Florida, where an enemy is admitted and pro- 
tected, or di.«;grace attends. 

" The executive government have ordered, and, as I conceive, very 
properly, Amelia island to be taken possession of This order ought to 
be carried into execution at all hazards, and simultaneously the whole 
of East Florida seized, and held as an indemnity for the outrages of 
Spain upon the property of our citizens. This done, it puts all opposi- 
tion down, secures our citizens a complete indemnity, and saves us from 
a war with Great Britain, or some of the continental powers combined 
with Spain. This can be done without implicating the government. 



MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON ON THE SKMINOLE WAR. 545 

uet it be signified to me through any channel, (say Mr. J. Rhea,) that 
he ]josscssion of the Floridas xcould he desirable to the United States 
xnd in sixty days it will be accomplished. 

" The order being given for the possession of Amelia island, it ought 
to be executed, or our enemies, internal and external, will use it to the 
disadvantage of the government. If our troops enter the territory of 
Spain, in pursuit of our Indian enemy, all opposition that they meet with 
must be put down, or we will be involved in danger and disgrace. 

" I have the honor, &c. 

" Andrew Jackson. 
*' James Monroe, President U. S." 

The account of the reception of this letter has been given ; but Mr. 
(jalhoun's " correspondence " contains no information of an answer, other 
than that Mr. Calhoun, after having perused the letter, said to Mr. 
Monroe, that it was a confidential one, which he (Mr. M.) must answer. 
Gen. Jackson in his " Exposition," says : " In accordance with the ad- 
vice of Mr. Calhoun, and availing himself of the suggestion contained in 
the letter, Mr. Monroe sent for Mr. John Rhea, (then a member of con- 
gress,) showed him the confidential letter, and requested him to answer 
it. In conformity with this request, Mr. Rhea did answer the letter, 
and informed Gen. Jackson that the president had shown him the con- 
fidential letter, and requested him to state that he approved of its sug- 
gestions. This answer was received by the general on the second night 
he remained at Big Creek, which is four miles in advance of Hartford, 
Georgia, and before his arrival at Fort Scott, to take command of the 
troops in that quarter. » * * Ry the secret act of congress, the 
president was authorized, under circumstances then existing, to seize 
and occupy all Florida. Orders had been given which were sufficiently 
general in their terms to cover that object. The confidential corres- 
pondence and general understanding, made them, so far as regarded the 
parties, as efi"ectually orders to take and occupy the province of Florida, 
as if that object had been declared on their face." 

The " Exposition" quotes from several letters subsequently written 
to him by Mr. Calhoun, expressions of approval of the measures adopted 
by him to terminate the war ; and adds : " On the 25th of March, 1818, 
I informed Mr. Calhoun that I intended to occupy St. Marks, and on 
the 8th of April, I informed him that it was done. Not a whisper of 
disapprobation or of doubt reached me from the government. On the 
5th of May, I wrote to Mr. Calhoun that I was about to move upon 
Pensacola, with a view of occupying that place. Again, no reply was 
ever given disapproving or discountenancing this movement. On the 

35 



546 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

2d of June, I informed Mr. Calhoun that I had on the 24th of May en- 
tered Pensacola, and the 28th had received the surrender of the Baran- 
cas. Again, no reply was given to this letter expressing any disapproval 
of these acts. In fine, from the receipt of the president's reply to my 
confidential letter of the 6th of January, 1818, through Mr. Rhea, until 
the receipt of the president's private letter, dated 19 th July, 1818, I 
received no instructions or intimations from the government, public or 
private, that my operations in Florida were other than such as the presi- 
dent and secretary of war expected and approved." 

To show, farther, that his course was approved by Mr. Calhoun, the 
general gives extracts from letters of Col. A. P. Hayne, who had served 
in this campaign, and had gone to Washington to settle his accounts 
He was a friend and fellow-citizen of Mr. Calhoun. Writing to Gen. 
Jackson on the 24th of September, 1818, he says: " The course the ad- 
ministration has thought proper to adopt, is to me incxplicahh. They 
retain St. Marks, and in the same breath give up Pensacola. Who can 
comprehend this ? [This is explained in the instructions to surrender 
the posts, but of which, probably. Col. Hayne was not then apprised.] 

* * * Indeed, sir, I fear that Mr. Monroe has on the present oc- 
casion yielded to those about him. I can not believe that it is the 
result of his honest convictions. Mr. Calhoun certainly thinks with 
you altogether, although after the decision of the cabinet, he must of 
course nominally support what has been done." And in another letter, 
of Jan. 21, 1819, after stating that he had traveled through several 
states, and that the people of the states and the people of the United 
States at large approved the conduct of the general in every respect, 
says : " So does the administration, to wit : Mr. Monroe, Mr. Calliouri^ 
and Mr. Adams, Mr. Monroe is your friend. He has identified you 
with himself. After the most mature reflection and deliberation upon 
all of your operations, he has covered your conduct. But I am candid 
to confess, that he did not adopt this line of conduct (in my mind) as 
soon as he ought to have done. Mr. Adams has done honor to his 
country and himself." 

Gen. Jackson then gives the statements of several gentlemen, who 
had told him in 1823, '24, and '25, that he had blamed Mr. Crawford 
wrongfully, and that Mr. Calhoun was the instigator of the attacks 
made upon him. Many other facts are given by the general to substan- 
tiate his charge of duplicity against Mr. Calhoun; but we have, per- 
haps, already occupied too much space with details of this controversy 
— more, certainly, than we should have done, but for the additional 
light which this correspondence throws upon the transactions of the 
Florida war. Upon this subject we take occasion to remark, that, 



DISSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSON's CABINET. 547 

whether Gen. Jackson did or did not strictly and literally conform to 
the orders of the government, an unprejudiced mind can scarcely resist 
the conclusion, after a careful examination of the question, that Gen. 
Jackson believed his proceedings fully authorized by his instructions 
from the government. 

With respect to the main question, a correct opinion is not easily 
formed. The statements and testimony of the parties are so directly 
contradictory as to be irreconcilable with the honesty and veracity of 
all concerned in this affair ; and yet, after the lapse of twenty-five years, 
when the public judgment is far less influenced by personal predilec- 
tions, it would perhaps be as unsafe to fix the guilt upon any particular 
individual as it was at the time of the controversy. The integrity so 
generally conceded to Mr. Calhoun during a long public career, as well 
as the correctness of his private life, has been considered by his frienda 
as suflScient to shield him even from a suspicion of falsehood. And yet, 
whatever may be the facts of the case, it will scarcely be alleged that 
the " correspondence," on the whole, is sufficient to sustain his charges 
against Gen. Jackson and Mr. Van Buren. 



CHAPTER XLIV. 

DISSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSOn's CABINET. MR. VAN BUREN's REJECTION 

AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. CASE OF THE CHEROKEES. 

Scarcely had the last of the " Calhoun correspondence" been given 
to the public, when an event occurred which served to increase and pro- 
tract the excitement which the controversy had produced. It was the 
dissolution of Gen. Jackson's cabinet — the consequence, as was alleged, 
of the rupture between the president and vice-president. Other occur- 
rences, however, seem to have had a large share in producing the cabinet 
explosion. 

Although the members of the cabinet were on friendly terms with each 
other, they differed in their preferences as to the successor of Gen. Jack- 
eon. The secretaries of the treasury and of the navy were the political 
friends of Mr. Calhoun. The secretary of war and the postmaster- 
general favored Mr. Van Buren secretary of state, the competitor of 
Mr. Calhoun for the succession. The vice-president, who had been the 
early supporter of Gen. Jackson had possessed a larger share of his 



548 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

confidence than the secretary of state, who had more recently come over 
to his support. The latter, however, had at this time acquired a con- 
trolling influence over the president, and had secured his preference for 
the succession. 

On the 7th of April, 1831, Mr. Eaton, the secretary of war, tendered 
his resignation to the president, assigning as the reason, that he had 
entered the cabinet contrary to his own wishes, intending at " the first 
favorable moment, after the administration should be in successful ope- 
ration, to retire." This resignation was followed by that of Mr. Van 
Buren, on the lltb, who alleged, as the cause, the premature agitation 
of the question of Gen. Jackson's successor, which it had been his 
anxious wish and zealous endeavor to prevent. Continuing a member 
of the cabinet while occupying the relation to the country which he then 
did, (that of a candidate for the presidencj^,) might have an injurious 
effect upon the conduct of public affairs ; and he therefore felt it his 
duty to resign. 

Having been informed of the president's purpose to reorganize his 
cabinet, the secretaries of the treasury and of the navy communicated 
their resignations on the 19th of April ; that of the attorney-general 
was delayed until the 15th of June, The letters of acceptance of the 
resignations of the retiring cabinet officers, bore full testimony to their 
integrity and fidelity in the discharge of their official duties. In these 
published resignations and the acceptance of them, there were no indica- 
tions of any personal differences between any of these officers and the 
president. 

The new cabinet was composed of Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, 
aecretary of state; Louis M'Lanc, of Delaware, (recalled from London 
for that purpose,) secretary of the treasury ; Lewis Cass, of Ohio, secre- 
tary of war ; Levi Woodbury, secretary of the navy ; Roger B. Taney, 
of Maryland, attorney-general ; and William T. Barry, of Kentucky, 
was continued postmaster-general, until 1835, when, having been 
appointed minister to Spain, he was succeeded by Amos Kendall, fourth 
auditor of the treasury. Mr. Van Buren was appointed minister to 
England in the place of Mr. M'Lane. Mr. Eaton was made governor 
of Florida, and, in 1836, was appointed minister to Spain in the place 
of Mr. Barry, deceased. 

There had been much speculation as to the causes of the dissolutior 
of the cabinet ; and from certain remarks of Mr. Branch in a letter of 
May 3, 1831, to a friend in North Carolina, some interesting develop- 
ment was anticipated. Mr. B. says : " The people have a right to know 
the whole truth ; from whence the alleged discord originated ; by whom 
and for what purpose it had been fostered ; and in what respect and 



DISSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSON's CABINET. 549 

wherefore it has been connected with the public administration of the 
affairs of the nation." He had gone as far as a man of honor could go, 
to promote harmony in the cabinet ; but he had been expected to go 
still farther, and not having done so, it had been held good cause for his 
dismissal. 

The public anxiety was soon relieved. The United States Telegraph, 
which had become the organ of Mr. Calhoun and his friends, anticipated 
forthcoming disclosures by the following among other significant ques- 
tions : " Will the Globe deny that Mr. Ingham, Grov. Branch, and Mr. 
Berrien were dismissed because they refused to compel their families to 
associate with that of Major Eaton ?" There had been unfavorable 
reports in circulation respecting Mrs. Eaton, who, though she may have 
been as chaste as the wife of Cassar, was unfortunately not, like her, 
above suspicion. . As these reports had seriously affected her standing 
in society at Washington, the three gentlemen above named had inter- 
dicted social intercourse between their families and Mr. Eaton's. Mr. 
Eaton and his wife being favorites of the president, this regulation of 
the two secretaries and the attorney-general excited his resentment ; and 
Col. Johnson, a member of congress, it was alleged, had previously 
waited on them, and informed them that it was the president's determi- 
nation to remove them unless they conformed to his wishes in this 
matter. 

A few days before Mr. Ingham left Washington for his residence in 
Pennsylvania, he received a letter from Mr. Eaton, saying that the 
Telegraph contained the remark, that " the families of the secretaries 
of the treasury and of the navy and of the attorney-general refused to 
associate with her," (Mrs. Eaton ;) and as that paper was friendly to Mr. 
Ingham, he desired to know whether he (Mr. I.) sanctioned or would 
disavow this publication, Mr. Ingham, in a brief reply, considers the 
demand too absurd to merit an answer ; and concludes by saying : " I 
take the occasion to say, that you must be not a little deranged to 
imagine, that any blustering of yours could induce me to disavow what 
all the inhabitants of this city know, and perhaps half the people of the 
United States believe to be true." The answer charges Mr. Ingham 
with having added insult to injury, and demands " satisfaction for the 
wrong." In his reply Mr. I. says: " I perfectly understand the part you 
are made to play in the farce you are made to act before the American 
people. I am not to be intimidated by threats, or provoked by abuse, 
to any act inconsistent with the pity and contempt which your condition 
and conduct inspire." Mr. Eaton closes the correspondence — calls Mr. 
La " great coward" — a "contemptible fellow" — and says: "Nothing 
more will be received short of an acceptance of my demand of Satur- 



550 • THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

day, and nothing more be said to me until face to face we meet. It is 
not my nature to brook your insults, nor will tliey be submitted to." 

The threats uttered in this letter, with certain movements by Mr. 
Eaton and his friends, excited apprehensions in the mind of Mr. I. 
who, the next day, (June 21), addressed to the president a letter 
expressing the belief, that certain " officers of the government supposed 
to be in the special confidence of the president, had attempted to way- 
lay him, (Mr. Ingham,) for the purpose of assassination." The officers 
suspected of this design severally denied, in letters to the president, all 
knowledge of any such purpose as that with which they had been 
charged. These letters were forwarded by the president to Mr. Ing- 
ham, who, in reply, mentioned facts and circumstances upon which hia 
apprehensions were founded, and challenged a legal investigation of the 
affair. The president directed an answer by N. P. Trist, informing 
Mr. Ingham that he does not consider the facts stated by him sufficient 
to sustain his charge; but assures him protection, if he will come to 
the seat of government, and prosecute the supposed offenders in the 
courts of the district. 

But to return to> the main question. The Globe editor, in his paper 
of the 19th of July, 1831, said he had received a letter from Col. John- 
son, in which he says : " Gen. Jackson never authorized me to require 
social intercourse, &c, &c. He always dislcaimed it. I told the par- 
ties so." Here, then, was a question of veracity to be settled between 
the parties. And in a letter to Mr. Berrien the next day, Mr. Blair, 
of the Globe, says it was in consequence of a supposed combination 
" to disgrace Major Eaton and coerce his dismission from the cabinet," 
that he had taken the attitude he had assumed in relation to the cir- 
cumstances which affected the harmony of his cabinet ; and that he 
(Blair) had before him the identical paper which the president had 
read to him (Berrien) and the two secretaries. Branch and Ingham, and 
in which he expressly says : " I do not claim the right to interfere, in 
any manner, in the domestic relations or personal intercourse of any 
member of my cabinet ; nor have I in any manner attempted it." 

Mr. Berrien, after a farther interchange of letters with Mr. Blair, 
addressed " the public" through the National Intelligencer. He dis- 
claimed having had any part in an attempt to coerce Mr. Eaton to 
retire from the cabinet ; and he endeavored to show that it was not in 
reference to this that Col. Johnson called on him. It was shortly after 
he had given an evening party, to which Mrs. Eaton had not been 
invited. lie was surprised at the message of Col. Johnson. He saj's : 
" I could make no mistake as to its character, for there was a repeated 
reference to the large parties which had been then recently given by 



DISSOLUTION OF GEN'. .lACKSO.V 



Messrs. Branch and Ingham and myself. Such a mistake, if it had 
been one, -would have been instantly corrected from the nature of my 
reply. If the complaint had been of a combination to evict Major 
Eaton from office^ and not to exclude his family from society^ the refer- 
ence to these evening parties would have been idle ; and my declaration 
that I would not permit the president to control the social intercourse 
of myself and family, would have been instantly met by an explanation, 
which would have removed the impression from the minds of Messrs. 
Branch and Ingham and myself. Yet we all parted with Col. Johnson, 
with a clear conviction that such a proposition had been made ; and 
feeliDg as we all did, that an indignity had been offered to us, there was, 
as I believe, no difference of opinion between us as to the course we 
ought to pursue, if this proposition should be avowed and pressed by 
the president. 

This conversation, Mr. Berrien said, took place on Wednesday even- 
ing, January 27. On Friday, his colleagues had their interview with 
the president, and on Saturday he had his. The president's personal 
friends having interposed, he had become sensible of the impropriety of his 
projected course. He referred to the parties that had been given, and 
said if he had been convinced that there had been a combination to 
exclude Mrs. Eaton from society, he would have required the resigna- 
tions of himself and his colleagues. But he had become satisfied that 
there had been no such combination. Mr. B. says : " He showed me 
no paper — spoke to me of none — intimated' to me no terms which he 
would hereafter require. By his declaration that he did not intend to 
press the requisition made through Col. Johnson, I considered the object 
of the interview to be, to explain to me the motives under which he 
had acted, and to announce the change of his determination." 

Mr. Ingham, who had taken full notes of the conversation with Col. 
Johnson, corroborated the statement of Mr. Berrien, and gave a still 
more minute detail of that conversation. Col. J. said the president had 
hoped that their families would have been willing to invite Mrs. Eaton 
to their large parties, to give the appearance of an ostensible inter- 
course, adding that he was so much excited that he was like a roaring 
lion. He had heard that the lady of a foreign minister had joined in 
the conspiracy against Mrs. Eaton, and that he had sworn that he 
Would send her and her husband home, if he could not put an end to 
such doings. This was said at an interview between Col. J. and Mr. 
Ingham alone. In the evening of the same day was the meeting at 
Mr. Berrien's, at which the conversation related by him took place. 
They attended a party the same evening at Col. Towson's, where a 
report was already current that they were to be removed. Col. John- 



552 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

son called on him (Mr. Ingham) the next morning, and said he ought 
perhaps to have been more frank last evening, and to have told them 
positively that the president would remove them, unless they agreed 
that their families should visit Mrs. Eaton, and invite her to their 
large parties. And the colonel mentioned the names of persons whom 
the president had designated for the two secretaryships. In the even- 
ing he called again, and said the president had drawn up a paper 
explanatory of what he expected of them ; that some of his Tennessee 
friends had been with him ; that his passion had subsided, and he had 
changed his ground ; he only wished that they should assist in putting 
down the slanders against Mrs. Eaton, whom he believed to be inno- 
cent. On the next day they had the interview with the president 
which has been alluded to by Mr. Berrien. Mr. Ingham had no recol- 
lection, nor had he taken any note, of any paper read to them by the 
president. 

The statements of Messrs. Ingham and Berrien are confirmed by Mr. 
Branch, who, writing to Mr. Berrien, says: " You can very well ima- 
gine my surprise, on reading the colonel's letter, from what you your- 
self experienced. My recollections of the interview will most abun- 
dantly corroborate all that you have said." Mr. Branch also positively 
declares that no paper was read to them by Gen. Jackson at the inter- 
view with the president. 

Col. Johnson, in letters to Messrs. Berrien and Ingham, in July, 1831, 
reiterates his former statement, that the president had disclaimed, in the 
paper before referred to, all intention to regulate the social intercourse 
of the members of his cabinet ; and that he (Col. J.) had, on his own re- 
eponsibility, made the inquiry whether they could not, at those large and 
promiscuous parties, invite Maj. Eaton and his family. 

We have thus sketched all that was deemed essential to an understand- 
ing of this cabinet controversy — more, perhaps, than every one will 
think the subject deserves. I)ifi"erent readers will regard the affair with 
different degrees of interest ; and its prominence, if not its importance, 
as an item of political history, seemed to claim for it a place in our 
record. In judging of its comparative influence as a cause of the dis- 
ruption of the cabinet, it is to be borne in mind, that the difficulties be- 
tween the parties preceded the Calhoun controversy, although the explo- 
sion did not occur until some time after the publication of his " corres- 
pondence." 

Mr. M'Laue having been appointed secretary of the treasury in presi- 
dent Jackson's new cabinet, in the summer of 1831, Mr. Van Buren was 
appointed to take his place as minister at London. The appointment 
was made during the recess of the senate and the nomination was made 



MR. Va:; BUREN S rejection as minister to ENGLAND. 553 

to that body at the next session. An excited debate of several days' 
continuance, and exhibiting a strong personal dislike to Mr. Van Buren, 
took place on this nomination, which was finally rejected by the casting 
vote of the vice president. The principal ground of opposition to the 
nomination, was the character of his instructions to Mr. M'Lane, re- 
specting the West India negotiation. 

Mr. Holmes said he was against him because he had humbled us in 
the eyes of foreign nations. He had surrendered the rights of hia 
country to Great Britian to sustain his party. He had also been ap- 
pointed to fill a vacancy created in the recess of the senate. This he 
disapproved, except for the most imperative reasons. It was compelling 
the senate to approve the appointment, or subject us to the loss of the 
outfit. Suspicion also rested on the nominee as having contrived, or 
contributed to bring about, the dissolution of the cabinet. 

Mr. Marcy challenged an inquiry into the causes of that event. Mr. 
Van Buren had denied all agency in the matter, and had challenged the 
world for proof. 

Mr. Chambers resisted the nomination exclusively on the ground of 
Mr. Van'Buren's instructions to Mr. M'Lane, in which he had violated 
the honor of the nation, and insulted the American people in the pex-son 
of their government ; and had disclosed a total ignorance of the prin- 
ciples and feelings which should adorn the diplomatist. He had in- 
structed our minister to press upon a foreign government the misconduct 
of one part of the American family in the relations of our government 
with that foreign power, and the more amiable and kind feelings of an- 
other division of it. A most revolting and unheard of experiment was 
to be made, (other supplications having failed to move the royal sympa- 
thy,) how far a condemnation of ourselves would disarm a British throne 
of its haughty, supercilious disdain of a just and honest demand. 

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, said the secretary was not responsible for 
the instructions : they had been given by order of the prQgident, who 
was the only responsible person known to the constitution. The secre- 
tary was under oath, " well and faithfully to execute the trust cocxinitted 
to him." The senator from Maine (Mr. Holmes) had said, " Mr.M'Lane 
had been sent to bow and cringe at the feet of the British minister." 
Mr. M'Lane was not made of such suppliant materials. He had asked only 
what was right, and what his country required. He had convinced the 
British ministry that they had departed from the rigid construction of 
the act of parliament of July, 1825, in the cases of France, Russia and 
Spain ; and that they could not, therefore, in justice, refuse a similar de- 
parture, in the demand of equal justice to the United States. The 
great ofi"ense was, that the negotiation had succeeded under the instruc- 



554 THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tions given by Mr. Van Buren, and failed under those of another — ^a 
crime never to be forgiven by the opponents of Gen. Jackson. 

Mr. Clayton said the minister had been sent with instructions to fawn, 
and beg as a boon, at the footstool of a foreign power, what we were en- 
titled to as a right ; to abandon as untenable " pretensions" that had 
Iways been insisted on as a matter of justice ; and to consider our gov- 
ernment in error for having " too long resisted the rights of Great 
Britain." He (Mr. C.) would this day, by his vote, say to England, 
we would never crouch for favors, and to all our ministers, now and for- 
ever, that we would condemn every attempt to carry our family divisions 
beyond our own household. 

Mr. Clay based his opposition on the same ground, and went into an 
examination of the " pretensions," as they had been called by Mr. Van 
Buren, and which our government had been said to have unjustly put for- 
ward, and pertinaciously maintained. He was opposed to the nomina- 
tion also, because the nominee had, as he believed, introduced the odious 
system of proscription into the general government ; the system prac- 
ticed in the gentleman's own state by the party of which he was the re- 
puted head. It was a detestable system, drawn from the worst periods of 
the Roman republic : and if the offices and honors of the American 
people were to be put up to a scramble to be decided by every presiden- 
tial election, our government would finally end in a despotism as inexor- 
able as that at Constantinople. 

Mr. Marcy replied. It was the habit, he said, of some gentlemen to 
speak with reproach of the politics of New York. The state was large, 
and had great and diversified interests. It had men of enterprise and 
talents who aspired to distinction. It was natural, therefore, that her 
politics should excite more interest at home, and attract more attention 
abroad, than those of some other states. It might be that the politi- 
cians of the United States were not so fastidious as some gentlemen were, 
as 1 disclesiug their principles of action. They boldly preached what 
they practiced. When they were contending for victory, they avowed 
their intention of enjoying the fruits of it. If they were defeated, they 
expected to retire from office. If they were successful, they claimed, as 
a matter of right, the advantages of success. They saw nothing wrong 
in the rule, that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy. 

Mr. M. also replied to the main objection of gentlemen. The late 
administration — probably in the hope of getting better terms — had 
refused those ofi"ered by Great Britain, until, finding that better terms, 
claimed as a right, could not be sustained, they concluded to take 
those first olTered ; which were then refused ; and the colonial trade waa 
lost. As negotiation had been refused to our government, it was ncces- 



CASE OF THE CHEROKEES. 555 

sary to offer some excuse for attempting it again. The administration 
had been changed, as was publicly known, from the hands of those who 
had refused the offered terms, into the hands of those who thought they 
ought to have been accepted ; and he saw nothing wrong in instructing 
Mr. M'Laue to use this fact in removing any obstacle to negotiation. 

Mr. Brown thought Mr. Van Buren's success in the management of 
our diplomatic affairs bore honorable testimony to his abilities as a 
statesman. He had, while secretary of state, accomplished more in less 
time than any of his predecessors. A comparison of the present admin- 
istration with that which preceded it, would redound greatly to the 
credit of the existing administration. 

Mr. Clay said it had been alleged, that the cause of the opposition to 
the nomination was the mortification felt at the success of the adminis- 
tration in recovering the colonial trade, and in its general success in the 
management of our foreign affairs He thought time would show that 
what had been done had placed the colonial trade in a more disadvan- 
tageous condition than it -v^as in before. He compared the diplomatic 
achievements of the two administrations. The successful negotiations 
credited to the present had been commenced, and were in favorable pro- 
gress, under the preceding administration, and one of them had proceed- 
ed so far as to want little more than the signature of the parties to the 
treaty. The conclusion of the French treaty under this administration, 
the world knew, would not have been obtained, but for the revolution of 
July. He then enumerated the diplomatic acts of the preceding admin- 
istration. Mr. C. remarked, in relation to the responsibility of a secre- 
tary of state, that he was equally responsible with the president by 
whom the instructions were sanctioned. 

Other senators participated in the debate : Messrs. Foot, Webster, 
Ewing, Poiudexter, Miller, Hayne, Frelinghuysen and Moore, in oppo- 
sition to the appointment ; and Messrs. Forsyth and Smith in its favor. 
The four southern senators. Miller and Hayne, of South Carolina, Poiu- 
dexter, of Mississippi, and Moore, of Alabama, were friends of Mr. Cal- 
houn ; and their opposition appeared to have proceeded from Mr. Van 
Buren's supposed agency in causing the dissolution of the cabinet, and 
from their dislike to him as a politician. They had been ardent sup- 
porters of the administration of Gen. Jackson. 

If party expediency was in any measure consulted in the rejection of 
Mr. Van ]5ureu, his opponents committed an error. The effect of their 
hostility was rather to increase than to diminish his popularity. 

The case of the Cherokees was rapidly approaching a crisis. An act 

had been passed by the legislature of Georgia, in December, 1S30, an- 

ulling the government and laws of the Indians, and enforcing the laws 



556 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of the state witliin tlie territory. This act also made it a misdemeanor 
for white men to reside within the limits of the Cherokee nation after 
the 1st jf March, 1831, without license from the governor or his agent, 
and without having taken an oath to support the constitution and laws 
of the state. Under this act, the Rev. Mr. Worcester, a missionary, and 
five others, were arrested soon after the law went into operation. A 
writ of habeas corpus was issued, directed to the Georgia commissioner 
having them in custody, requiring him to show cause for their capture 
and detention ; who returned upon the writ that the prisoners had been 
arrested under the act of the state, he having been duly appointed com- 
missioner. 

The discharge of the defendants was demanded by their counsel, on 
the ground that the act under which they had been apprehended, was 
contrary to the constitution of the United States, and to the constitu- 
tion of the state of Georgia. The judge gave an elaborate opinion, main- 
taining the constitutionality of the laws and the legality of the arrest. 
But as Worcester and one of the others were missionaries, and one of 
them was a postmaster ; as they were there by the consent of the gene- 
ral government for the purpose of civilizing and Christianizing the 
Indians ; and as they were government agents for the disbursement of 
public moneys for that purpose, he discharged them under the provision 
of the state law which excepted all agents of the general government 
from its provisions. The other four persons were bound over to answer 
for the misdemeanor charged against them. 

Mr. Worcester was soon after removed from the office of postmaster 
at New Echota, with the view, as was supposed, to make way for his 
arrest. This supposition was soon verified. Letters were addressed, 
(May 16,) by Gov. Gilmer, to Rev. Messrs. Worcester and Thompson, 
informing them that the general government did not recognize the mis- 
sionaries as its agents, and advising them to remove from the territory 
without delay, or comply with the law of the state by taking the con- 
stitutional oath, in order to avoid the punishment imposed by the law 
for disobedience. 

A number of persons were arrested, among whom were Dr. Butler, 
and Rev. Messrs. Worcester and Thompson, Presbyterian missionaries, 
and one or more Methodist preachers. Several of them were most 
cruelly treated by the guard, having been conveyed in chains, and one 
of them. Dr. Butler, having a chain about his neck, and fastened to the 
horse on which the soldier rode who conveyed him. Ten of them were 
indicted, convicted, and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Only 
Dr. Butler and Mr Worcester were imprisoned ; the others having been 
pardoned by the governor on their giving assurance that they would not 



CASE OF THE CHEHOKEES. 557 

again violate the laws. Mr. Worcester applied to the supreme court of 
the United States for relief. 

The conviction of the missionaries took place in September, 1831. 
On the 1st of March, 1832, the case of Worcester against the state of 
G-eorgia was decided by the supreme court ; and the laws of that state 
under which possession had been taken of the Cherokee country, and per- 
sons had been punished for residing therein, were declared to be contrary 
to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States, and ought 
to be reversed and annulled. Mr. Worcester was therefore ordered, by a 
special mandate from this court to the superior court of Georgia, to be 
discharged. 

The opinion of the court was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall. 
A separate opinion, concurring with that of the court, was delivered by 
Justice M'Lean. Both opinions were elaborate, and of great length. 
Justice Baldwin dissented. We give a synopsis of the opinion of the 
court, as published in the National Intelligencer [Note, page 997.] 

The mandate of the supreme court was disregarded, and the mission- 
aries kept in prison, without any hope of liberation before another ses- 
sion of the supreme court, January, .1833, when the court would pro- 
bably enjoin the marshal of the district of Georgia to summon the posse 
comitatus, and the president of the United States to place the army and 
-lavy at the service of the civil authority, if necessary, to carry the de- 
cree into effect. 

In the mean time, the survey of the Cherokee lands, and the disposal 
of them by lottery, proceeded. The missionaries, indisposed to protract 
the controversy, informed the authorities of Georgia that they had or- 
dered the discontinuance of their suit ; and the state being no longer 
threatened with coercion, and the question of the continuance of the 
confinement of the missionaries being left to the magnanimity of the state, 
they were discharged, by order of the governor, on the 14th of January, 
1833. 

The Indians continued to be disturbed in the possession of their lands, 
and the executive persisted in refusing them protection. An offer was 
made them by the general government for their lands east of the Mis- 
sissippi. A council was held in May to consider the subject ; but the 
proposition was declined. The peculiar conduct of the government in 
this matter did not escape the notice of the Cherokees. Their treaties 
had been uniformly recognized by the government. Georgia herself had 
recognized their validity ; and the supreme court had so decided. The 
government still offered to pay them for their lands, which they consider- 
ed as tantamount to a recognition of their right to them ; but in case 
they refused to treat, allowed Georgia, in the face of solemn treaties, to 



558 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

grant the lands to her own citizens without compensation to the aborigi- 
nal owners. 

Various expedients were adopted to effect their removal. Agents 
were sent among them to enrol all who could be persuaded to emigrate 
on the conditions proposed by the government ; and a new attempt was 
made to enter into a treaty, to which the Cherokees were indisposed. 

The president was anxious to effect a settlement of this unpleasant 
controversy. This anxiety was supposed to have been increased by the 
dilemma in which he had placed himself. He had just aided in suppress- 
ing an attempt by South Carolina to nullify an act of congress. He 
had issued the proclamation, in which he had declared the authority of 
the supreme court to decide questions involving the constitutionality of 
laws; and he had recommended the passage of a law for the enforcement 
of the collection of the revenues in that state ; while he refused to em- 
ploy the force at his command to protect the Cherokees in the enjoy- 
ment of rights guarantied to them by treaties which this same judicial 
tribunal had pronounced binding upon the general government. Mr. 
Calhoun had noticed this predicament of the president in the discussion 
upon the " force bill," as it was ca]led. He said : " The president had 
laid it down that the tribunal of the supreme court was, in the last re- 
sort, the only arbiter of the difference in the construction of the consti- 
tutionality of the laws. On this point there seems to have been a great 
change in the opinion of the executive within the last twelve months. 
The president had not held this opinion in reference to the resistance 
of the state of Georgia. A narrow river only divides the territory of 
Georgia from that of South Carolina ; yet, on the one side, the power 
of the supreme court, as the arbiter, in the last resort, is to be sustained, 
while, on the other side, the will of the executive is to be supreme." 

The course of the president on the Carolina question, raised for a 
time the hopes of the Cherokees. Their paper remarked : " The su- 
preme court of the United States have decided the question of our case 
favorably, and the president in his proclamation to the people of South 
Carolina having promptly declared the supremacy of the constitution 
and laws of the United States over state authority, there was every rea- 
son to believe that he would ultimately enforce the treaties and inter- 
course act for our protection." 

The protracted Indian difficulties were at length terminated by a 
treaty concluded with their head men and chiefs, the 29th of December, 
1835, by Wm. Carroll and John F. Schermerhorn, on behalf of the 
United States. The sum stipulated to be paid for their lands, was 
$5,000,000 ; to which a supplementary article adds $600,000 to defray 
the expense of removal and to cover all claims for spoliations, and $100,- 
000 more to the national fund. 



PUBLIC LANDS. 559 

On the 1 8th of May, 1836, when the resolution for the ratification of 
the treaty came up before the senate for consideration, Mr. Clay moved 
an amendment, declaring, that the writing purporting to be a treaty had 
not been made by authority on the part of the Cherokee tribe competent 
to bind it, and was therefore not a valid treaty; and advising the presi- 
dent to open a new negotiation. The motion of Mr. Clay, however, 
was unsuccessful; and the treaty was confirmed, 31 to 15. 

The Cherokees had for some time been divided into two parties, head- 
ed, respectively, by Ross and Ridge. The party adhering to the latter, 
had consented to the treaty, believing they could never prosper under 
the laws of Georgia ; the former protested against the sale of their lands 
and their removal to the west. 



CHAPTER XLV. 

PUBLIC LANDS. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. 

TARIFF OF 1832. APPORTIONMENT UNDER THE FIFTH CENSUS. 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. RETURN OF THE LAND BILL. 

The 1st session of the 22d congress commenced the 5th of December, 
1831, and was protracted to the 18th of July, 1832. This session was 
distinguished for the number of important subjects which engaged the 
deliberations of congress, and for the free use of the executive veto. 

The subject of the public lands, so prolific of discussion in former 
years, was again agitated at the present session. Various propositions 
in relation to the disposal of them were made, none of which received a 
final and favorable action in both houses. In the senate, the subject 
was referred to the committee on manufactures, with instructions to in- 
quire into the expediency of reducing the price of public lands, and of 
ceding them to the states in which they were situated, on reasonable 
terms. The reference of the question of the public lands to the com- 
mittee on manufactures, was thought by some to be intended to em- 
barrass Mr. Clay, as being both chairman of that committee, and a can- 
didate for the presidency. Perhaps, however, this reference was made 
from a supposed bearing of the question upon the tarifi"; the modifica- 
tion of which might in some measure be affected by the amount of rev 
enue thereafter to be derived from the sales of public lands. 

Mr, Clay, on the 16th of April, made a report sustaining the fori;) , 



S'iO THE AMEKICAN STATESMAN. 

policy of the government, and against the proposed reduction of the price 
of the lauds, and their cession to the states. He thought, although the 
revenue was not needed by the government at present, it would be wise 
to provide against seasons of adversity. As the revenue from duties on 
imports was sufficient for ordinary purposes, he proposed a distribution 
of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the states, for a 
limited time, subject to be resumed by the government in the contin- 
gency of war. To the five per cent, reserved from these proceeds, ten 
per cent, was to be added, for making internal improvements in the new 
states ; which was intended to allay the complaints of the people of these 
states, that the public lands were exempt from taxation until the expira- 
tion of five years from the time of sale. The residue of the fund derived 
from land sales was to be divided among all the states in proportion to 
their federal population, to be applied to purposes of education, internal 
improvements, or colonization, as each state should judge most condu- 
cive to its interests. The time limited for the distribution of the land 
proceeds was by the bill fixed at five years. 

The report of Mr. Clay was followed, on the 1 8th of May, by a counter 
report from the committee on public lands, to whom the bill reported 
by the committee on manufactures had been referred. This report was 
made by Mr. King, of Alabama, and difi"ered fundamentally from that 
of Mr. Clay. A reduction of the price was recommended, because, the 
public debt being nearly paid, the lands were released from the pledge 
they were under for that object; because a large proportion of them were 
refuse lands, having been long in market ; because the extinction of the 
government title to them was essential to the independence and prosper- 
ity of the states in which they were situated, and for other reasons. 

As the committee considered the public lands a subject of revenue, 
and as the question of reducing the revenue from this source had been 
referred to the committee on manufactures, who had reported " a bill 
farther to amend the acts imposing duties on imports ;" they recom- 
mended that an amendment be offered to that bill, to reduce the price 
of fresh lands to one dollar per acre, and the price of lands having been 
in market five years, to fifty cents per acre; and secondly, that the bill 
relating to the public lands reported by the committee on manufactures, 
and referred to this committee, be amended by striking out the whole, 
except so much as proposes to allow ten per cent, to the new states, and 
to increase the same to fifteen per ct. making the whole allowance twenty 
per cent. The amendment proposed by the committee on public lands, 
after considerable debate, was negatived by a large majority ; and tho 
bill reported by Mr. Clay was passed, 26 to 18. 

The bill was sent to the house for concurrence, July 3, when its con- 



THE " HARBOR BILL 561 

sideration was postponed to the first Monday of December next • which 
was in efi"ect a rejection of the bill. 

Internal improvement, another subject of almost incessant agitation 
was again discussed at this session. A bill originated in the house 
" making appropriations for certain internal improvements for the year 
1832," which passed both houses, against a strenuous opposition from 
the administration members from the southern and eastern states and 
the state of New York ; and which received the approval of the presi- 
dent, notwithstanding his previously expressed objections to a system 
of internal improvement. The bill contained about fifty objects of 
appropriation, some of which were considered of less importance than 
those which had been negatived by the president at a previous session. 
The sums appropriated by this bill, exceeded, in the aggregate, 
$1,200,000. 

Another bill, making appropriations for the improvement of harbors 
and rivers, also originated in the house, passed that body by a vote of 
95 to 68. A motion by Mr. Polk to strike out the enacting clause had 
been previously negatived, 101 to 72. In the senate the bill was ordered 
to be engrossed by a vote of 25 to 16 ; and was passed the next day, 
July 5, by nearly the same vote. 

The contradictory action of the president upon former bills for inter- 
nal improvement and that which he had just approved, rendered the fate 
of the " harbor bill," as it was termed, somewhat doubtful. Its passage 
by the senate having been indicated by the vote upon certain amendments, 
Mr. Miller, of South Carolina, said, he had been informed, that the 
president had approved a bill for the benefit of internal improvements, 
containing appropriations for the most limited and local purposes. He 
hoped he should not again be referred to the vetoes of the Maysville and 
Rockville roads, as security against this system. Both houses and the 
president concurred in this power. Mr. Clay " expressed his astonish- 
ment that they who held the Maysville and Rockville roads and other 
objects to be unconstitutional, had, it was announced to-day, supported 
the harbor bill, which contained objects standing precisely on the sanio 
footing. It appeared that, under the present administration, the consti- 
tutionality or unconstitutionality of a measure depended only upon cir- 
cumstances of an accidental character." 

This bill, though similar in principle to the other, did not receive the 

signature of the president. It was received by him the 13th of July, 

three days before the adjournment of congress ; and instead of returning 

it with his objections, he retained it until congress had adjourned, and 

aus prevented further action upon it. 

A bill was also passed at this session, making appropriations for the 
36 



562 THE AMERICAN STATESMAlf. 

final aettlement of the claims of the several states for interest on moteya 
advanced to the United States during the last war. This bill also, passed 
the day after the passage of the other, was virtually negatived by ita 
retention until after the adjournment. The passage of three bills, there- 
fore, was arrested by the president at this session. 

At the session of 1831-32, a new tariff act was passed. A report was 
made to the house, on the 8th of February, 1832, by Mr. M'Dufl5e, 
chairman <.f the committee of ways and means, in conformity with the 
views of the opponents of protection. It adopted a general system of 
ad valorem duties, and proposed a reduction of duties to a standard 
deemed necessary for the purpose of revenue, after the payment of the 
public debt. It proposed a gradual reduction, which should leave a uni- 
Ibrm duty of only 12 1-2 per cent, on all goods imported into the United 
States after the 30th of June, 1834. A counter report was made by 
Messrs. Ingersoll, of Conn., and Gilmore, of Penn. Mr. Verplanck, of 
New York, of the same committee, dissented from both. 

Another report was made to the house, on the 27th of April, by Mr. 
M'Lane, secretary of the treasury, in compliance with a resolution of the 
house. The bill accompanying this report proposed to reduce the duty 
on coarse wool to the mere nominal duty of 5 per cent., and on woolen 
goods to 20 per cent. ; to abolish entirely the minimum system as to 
woolens^ except the cheaper qualities ; and to reduce the duties generally 
to an aggregate sum equal to the necessary expenditures of the govern- 
ment. Neither of these two bills seems to have received any action in 
the house, except a very long speech of Mr. M'Duffie in support of tho 
bill reported by himself 

At a late period of the session, (May 24,) John Quincy Adams, from 
the committee on manufactures, made a long report, with a bill repeal- 
ing the act of 1828, and essentially reducing the duties on some impor- 
tant articles, as iron, coarse woolens, &c. As a whole, however, it seema 
to have been more satisfactory to the friends of protection, than the act 
of 1828. In South Carolina, it was considered by the "union" party 
as a concession, while the " state rights" party regarded it as no les? 
objectionable than former acts. 

The bill of Mr. M'Lane was intended as a compromise ; and was satis- 
factory to neither of the two great interests chiefly to be affected by a 
reduction of the revenue. It proposed to reduce the revenue from duties 
on imports to twelve millions; a reduction of about ten millions. Mr. 
Adams' report was exclusively his own, no other member of the commit- 
tee agreeing with him in every particular. The bill of the secretary 
proposed a reduction equal to the amount now pledged for the payment 
cf the national debt, which was nearly paid. IMr. Adams and a majority 



APPORTIONMENT TrNOEa THE FIFTH CENSUS. 563 

of the committee thought a reduction to the full amount of the annual 
appropriation which was to cease — ten millions — too great. Others of 
the committee considered the reduction insufficient. Such modifications 
had therefore been made in the bill of the secretary as to command for 
it the support of a majority of the committee, although it was not, in all 
its details, satisfactory to any one of its members. 

The discussion of the bill was a brief one ; and, with a few amend- 
ments, not materially altering its character, was passed by a vote of 132 
to 65. In the senate, it received several amendments, some of which 
were agreed to by the house. A conference was had ; and the commit- 
tee on the part of the senate, having recommended that they recede from 
the amendments disagreed to by the house, the same was done. The 
bill, as amended in the senate, passed that body by a vote of 32 to 16. 
The votes on receding from the different amendments disagreed to by the 
house, were various. The votes against it in both houses, were chiefly 
from members who objected to it on the ground that it did not surrender 
the principle of protection. 

A new apportionment of members of the house of representatives 
under the fifth census was made at this session. A bill was reported in 
the house of representatives by Mr. Polk, proposing one representative 
for every 48,000 inhabitants entitled to representation, and declaring the 
number of representatives in each state under this rule. The ratio 
finally adopted, was 47,700 ; and to avoid the constitutional objection 
made by president Washington to the apportionment bill under the 
first census, no member was given to any state en a residuary fraction of 
population. The bill passed the house by a vote of 130 to 58, and was 
sent to the senate. 

In the senate, the bill was referred to a select committee of seven 
members, Mr. Webster chairman, who proposed to amend the bill by 
striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting a substitute, 
making the ratio 47,000, and giving to each state a representative for 
that number of inhabitants. This would give to each state the same 
number of representatives (240) as the original bill. And to states hav- 
ing fractions of 25,000, an additional representative was to be given, 
increasing the number to 255. Mr. W. undertook to show that his 
amendment was not liable to the objection of Gen. Washington, which 
was, that no one number, or division, would yield the number of mem- 
bers expressed in the bill, and that it allotted to eight of the states 
more than one representative for every 30,000, contrary to an express 
provision of the constitution. 

Mr. Clayton also contended, that the bill of 1792, had been rejected 
Bolcly because it gave more than one representative for each 30,000 *o 



564 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, . 

several of the states ; for, iu the bill afterwards signed by Wasliiugton 
fractions were in fact represented. 

Opposite ground was taken by Messrs. Marcy, Frelinghuysen, and 
others, who maintained, that Mr. Webster's bill was liable to the same 
objection as that rejected in 1702; and the opinion of Mr. Madison was 
cited by Mr. Marcy, in support of his argument. Mz-. Frelinghuysen 
also brought the proposed amendment to the test of Washington's objec- 
tions ; the first and principal one of which was, " that there was no one 
proportion or division which, applied to the respective numbers of the 
states, would yield the number and allotment of representatives proposed 
by the bill; and the second, not the only substantial difficulty with the 
president, as some had insisted, but an inference from the former — that 
" the bill allotted to eight of the states more than one for every 30,000." 
After the bill had been returned, congress passed a new bill with a ratio 
of 33,000, and applied that to the population of each state. 

Several other senators participated iu the discussion. The bill as it 
came from the house, was finally ordered to a third reading; ayes, 27 ; 
noes, 20. 

Another presidential election was approaching. Gen. Jackson had 
been designated by his friends in all parts of the union, at an early period 
after the commencement of his administration, as a candidate for reelec- 
tion. Hence a national convention was necessary only to nominate a 
candidate for vice-president. The convention for that purpose was held 
at Baltimore, in May, 1832; and Mr. Van Buren was nominated. 
Probably his rejection by the senate, as minister to England, contributed 
to the unanimity with which the nomination was made ; the friends of 
the president deeming his election necessary as a means of avenging the 
dishonor cast upon himself by the rejection of Mr. Van Buren. 

The opposition had selected Mr. Clay as their candidate. He had 
been nominated by a convention of national republicans in December, 
1831, with John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, for vice-president. The 
anti-masons, whose rise and progress as a political party has been 
described, supported William Wirt for president, and Amos Ellmaker, 
of Pennsylvania, for vice-president ; who had been nominated by a 
national convention, also held in Baltimore, in September, 1831. The 
great body of the anti-masons agreed, in their views of national policy, 
with the " national republicans." the appellation which had been assumed 
by the opponents of the administration. Mr. Clay, however, being a 
mason, the anti-masons were unwilling to give him their support. 

The nomination of Mr. Wirt had not been anticipated. It had been 
the purpose of the anti-masons to nominate John M'Lean, of Ohio, in 
the hope of securing the cooperation of the national republicans in his 



PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 565 

support. Aware that his name would be brought before the convention, 
he addressed to one of its members a letter, req^uesting tlat, as Gen. 
Jackson, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Calhoun, had all been nominated by their 
friends 1u public meetings and otherwise, and as he thought it inex- 
pedient to distract still more the public mind, his name might be with- 
drawn. And as leading masons among the national republicans had 
expressed a determination not to form a union with the anti-masons, even 
though Judge M'Lean were nominated, the selection of another person 
became necessary. 

The states represented in the anti-masonic national convention, were 
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- 
necticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsjdvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
Ohio, and Indiana. John C. Spencer, of New York, was chosen presi- 
dent of the convention. The convention was in session three days ; hav- 
ing received, before its adjournment, letters of acceptance from both the 
candidates. 

The letter of Mr. Wirt was one of great length, stating his former con- 
nection with the institution of masonry, and his limited knowledge of its 
character, and of the obligations said to be assumed by those entering 
the higher degrees. But it had become manifest, from the trials in the 
case of Morgan, that these oaths were not considered by those wlio im- 
posed and took them, as mere idle words ; but that they were viewed as 
obligations to be practically enforced. This could not, however, be 
masonry as understood by Washington. The suspicion would be parri- 
cide. Nor could he believe, that, where he was best acquainted, intelli- 
gent and honorable men, if they had been drawn in to take these shock- 
ing and impious oaths, could consider them as paramount to their duties 
to God and their country. He was unwilling to pledge himself to unite 
in a war of indiscriminate proscription against all who had ever borne the 
name of mason. 

The numerous eases of defection from the ranks of the administration 
party, had inspired some of its opponents with the hope of success, or at 
least of a bare election of Gen. Jackson. The election, however, showed 
a different result. Gen. Jackson received of the electoral votes, 219 ; 
Mr. Clay, 49 ; and Mr. Wirt, 7. The 30 Pennsylvania electors voted 
for William Wilkins, of that state, instead of Mr. Van Buren, for vice- 
president ; and the 1 1 votes of South Carolina, were given for John 
Floyd, of Virginia, and Henry Lee, of Massachusetts. 

The electoral vote for president, however, was not a true indication of 
the popular vote, which was less, in the aggregate, than at his first elec- 
tion; some of the states having been carried by small majorities. It 
was hence inferred that a perfect cordial union of his opponents might 
Vave defeated his election. 



566 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



CHAPTER XL VI. 

I 

TTNITED STATES BANK BILL VETOED AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 

A MEMORIAL, in behalf of the stockholders, was presented, asking 
for a renewal of the charter of the bank. Among the reasons stated 
for making the application at so early a date, the memorial says: 
" Unless the question is decided by the present congress, no definitive 
action can be expected until within two years of the expiration of the 
charter — a period before which, in the opinion of your memorialists, it 
is highly expedient, not merely in reference to the institution itself, 
but to the interests of the nation, that the determination of congress 
should be known. Independently of the influence which the bank was 
designed to possess, and which it necessarily exercises over the state of 
the currency, by which all the pecuniary transactions of the community 
are regulated, its own immediate operations are connected intimately with 
the local business of almost every section of the United States, with the 
commercial interchanges between the several states, and the intercourse 
of them all with foreign nations." 

In the senate, the memorial was referred to a select committee, con- 
sisting of Messrs. Dallas, Webster, Ewing, Hayne, and Johnston, of 
Louisiana. In the house, it was referred to the committee of ways and 
means, of which Mr. M'Duffie was chairman. A bill was reported iu 
each house ; but that of Mr. Dallas iu the senate was the one adopted 
by both houses. It proposed a renewal for only fifteen years ; required 
the same bonus, ($1,500,000,) to be paid to the government as was 
required by the charter of 1816. The new bill contained several modi- 
fications of the existing charter, some of which Mr. Dallas deemed either 
unnecessary or injurious; one of which compelled the bank, or any of 
its branches, to receive in payment of balances due it by state banks, 
the notes issued by, and payable at any other branch. The constitu- 
tional power to establish a bank, Mr. Dallas said, had been asserted and 
sustained, for so many years, by every department of the government, and 
had been so long acquiesced in by the people, that he considered that 
matter as definitively settled. 

The report of Mr. M'Dufl&e, of the house, consisted, chiefly, of his 
report of 1830; and the bill reported by him provided for continuing 
the bank for twenty years under its present charter, with some modifi- 
cations ; one of which vas, that the president should appoint one of the 



UNITED STATES BANK. 567 

directors of each branch ; another, that, for the exclusive privileges and 
benefits conferred by the act, a certain rate of interest (not mentioned ip 
the bill) should be paid upon the government deposits, instead of a spe- 
cific sum, as a bonus. Congress also reserved the right of revoking the 
charter after ten years, by giving three years' notice. And the issue of 
notes at branches where they were not payable, was prohibited. 

The vote on the final passage of the bill, (that of the senate,) was, in 
the senate, 28 to 20 ; in the house, 107 to 85. The bill was sent to the 
president for his approval ; and returned with his objections to the 
senate, where, on the question of its passage, notwithstanding the veto, 
the vote was 22 to 19, lacking the constitutional majority necessary to 
its passage. 

This exercise of the veto drew upon the president the severe displea- 
sure of the friends of the bank, and the highest commendations of its 
opponents. By the former, his reasons were deemed frivolous and 
unsatisfactory ; by the latter, substantial and unanswerable. The pre- 
sident regarded it as one objection to the renewal of the bank, that the 
stockholders would immediately be largely benefited by an increase of 
the price of the stock ; and for this gratuity to foreigners and some of 
our opulent citizens, the act secured no equivalent. The present corpo- 
ration had long enjoyed the monopoly; and if we must have such a cor- 
poration, why should not the government sell out the whole stock, and 
thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted, 
by putting the premium upon the sales into the treasury ? 

It had been urged in favor of a recharter, that calling in its loans 
would produce embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close 
its concerns was ample ; and if it had been well managed, its pressure 
would be light, and heavy only in case its management had been bad. 

Another objection was, that a large portion of the stock was held by 
foreigners. In case of war, should the stock principally have passed 
into the hands of foreigners, all its operations within would be in aid of 
the hostile fleets and armies without. 

The views of the president in relation to the constitutionality of 
the bank deserve a careful consideration. His conclusions on this sub- 
ject differ from those of Mr. Madison, who, in 1816, waived his consti- 
tutional scruples, and subsequently maintained, that precedent, the deci- 
sion of the supreme court, and the long acquiescence of the people, 
had settled the constitutionality of the bank. Congress, the president 
said, had as often decided against, as in favor of a bank. And in the 
states, the expressions of the legislative, executive, and judicial opinions 
against the bank had been, probably, to those in its favor, as four to 
one. Precedent was therefore not in favor of the act. Mere precedent 



568 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

was dangerous authority, except where the acquiescence of the people 
and the states could be considered as well settled. 

The opinion of the supreme court, he contended, ought not to control 
the coordinate authorities of the government. He said : " The con- 
gress, the executive, and the court, must each for itself be guided by its 
own opinion of the constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath 
to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he under- 
stands it, and not as it is understood by others. * # # j^\^q opinion 
of the judges has no more authority over congress than the opinion of 
congress has over the judges; and on that point the president is inde- 
pendent of both." [Appendix, Note E.] 

The question of constitutionality was farther discussed; and other 
objections were presented in the message ; to which the reader is referred. 
The veto of the bank bill was turned to the account of the president's 
popularity. The veto message was extensively circulated and read, 
and greatly increased the opposition to the institution. It met general 
favor among the friends of the administration, except in the state of 
Pennsylvania, where a strong opposition to the president was created. 
In Philadelphia, the excitement was intense. A meeting was held in 
that city, said to have been one of the largest ever assembled in it, com- 
posed in great part of the former friends of the president ; from whom 
.the presiding officer, and a majority of the subordinate officers, were 
selected, in order to render the meeting the more imposing. 

The president and his message were treated with great severity, as 
appears from the resolutions adopted by the meeting, which was truly an 
" indignation meeting;" its members declaring that they had read the 
message with "astonishment, indignation, and alarm." It was pro- 
nounced a "discreditable document." Its " languao-e, doctrines, tern- 
per, and purposes," gave " additional evidence that the opinions and 
actions of the president were controlled by the influence of designing 
men, seeking their own continuance in power, at the sacrifice of the 
country." His rejection of the bank bill, his assaults upon the prin- 
ciples of protection to American industry, upon the supreme court, and 
upon the independence of congress, had " severed the ties by which the 
people of Pennsylvania had been connected with him;" and they de- 
clared, " that the reelection of a president whose official path had been 
strewed with violated pledges," and who had " wantonly trampled upon 
the interests of his fellow-citizens, would be a national calamity." He 
had "shown an utter contempt of the .inanimous voice of Pennsylvania, 
expressed through her legislature and delegation in congress with regard 
to the bank, the tarifl', and the judiciary;" and this they considered 
'' ungrateful," as it was to " the active and persevering support of that 



AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 569 

state, that he was maiiily iudebted for his elevation to the presidency." 
Resolutions were also passed, tendering thanks to their senators, Dallas 
• and Wilkius, for continuing to vote for the bank bill after it had been 
returned. 

On motion of Mr. A. S. Clayton, of Georgia, February 23, a com- 
mittee was appointed in the house of representatives, on the 14th of 
March, 1832, " to inspect thj books, and examine into the proceedings 
of the bank of the United States." The debate on the proposition was 
one of the most animated that occurred during the session. Numerous 
acts of misconduct were alleged against the bank as furnishing ground 
for the inquiry. The charges were : The issue of $7,000,000 and more 
of branch bank orders as a currency ; usury ; dealing in domestic bills 
of exchange and disguised loans ; non-user of charter ; building houses 
to rent ; deficiency of coin ; foreigners through their trustees voting for 
directors ; with sundry minor abuses. 

Mr. Clayton, who preferred these charges, was replied to by Mr. 
M'DujB&e, who denied some of the acts charged, and vindicated others, 
as consistent with the charter, and agreeable to the ordinary course of 
business. A large number of members participated in the debate, in 
the course of which the merits and demerits of the institution were 
closely canvassed. The committee appointed under the resolution con- 
sisted of Messrs. Clayton, Adams, M'Duffie, Johnson, of Kentucky, 
Cambreleng, Thomas, of Maryland, and Watmough. Three different 
reports were made by the members of this committee : the first, from 
the majority, Messrs. Clayton, Johnson, Cambreleng, and Thomas ; the 
second, from Messrs. M'Dufiie, Adams, and Watmough ; and the third, 
from Mr. Adams alone. 

The inquiry of the committee was directed to two general objects : 
1st. Whether the provisions of the charter had been violated. 2d. 
Whether there had been any circumstances of mismanagement against 
which future legislation might guard, or which should destroy its 
claims to farther confidence. 

In relation to the first general object of inquiry, the committee sub- 
mitted six cases which had been made the subjects of imputation against 
the bank, without expressing their own opinion as to their force. 

1st. Usury. Under a former president of the bank, (Mr. Cheves,) 
in 1822, the branch at Lexington, having on hand a large amount of 
depreciated Kentucky bank notes, had loaned some of them to an 
individual, who said they would answer his purpose as well as any 
other bills, as they would be used in paying a debt. The minority did 
not consider this a case of usury. The bank of Kentucky had subse- 
quently redeemed its notes. The loan was made with reluctance, after 



s^o 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



repeated applications ; yet, after many years, Mr. Biddlc being presi- 
dent, the bank had refunded the difference between the nominal and 
real value. The bank had also, in addition to the rate of interest, 
charged the rate of exchange. The president of the bank said that was 
the usual custom, and was not usury. 

2d. Issuing branch drafts. It had been found impracticable for the 
president and cashier to sign a sufficient number of small notes to sup- 
ply the required circulation from the bank and all its branches. The 
practice had therefore been adopted of the branches drawing checks on 
the cashier of the bank for smaller sums than they had been in the habit 
of furnishing. The opinions of Mr. Binney, Mr. Webster, and Mr. 
Wirt, the attorney-general, had been taken on the issuing of the branch 
drafts. 

3d. Selling coin, and especially American coin. The bank was autho- 
rized to deal in bullion. Foreign coins were considered bullion. Hav- 
ing bought them at a premium, it had sold them at a premium. The 
bank had in this also acted under legal advice. Dealing in coin, the 
minority said, was the very end for which it had been created. 

4th. Sale of stock obtained from government under special acts of 
congress ; whereas the bank was forbidden by its charter to deal in 
stocks. The minority considered the right of the bank to sell the 
stock for which it had been expressly authorized to subscribe, to be of 
the very essence of the right of property. 

5th. Donations for roads, canals, &c. The committee said there 
might be a question whether the public funds of the bank could be thus 
appropriated. The minority said the directors had, in two instances, 
subscribed small sums to certain internal improvements in the vicinity 
of the real estate of the bank, with a view to the improvement of its 
value. For this they were responsible to the stockholders alone. 

6th. Building houses to rent or sell. This was defended by the 
minority. The bank was expressly authorized to purchase real estate 
mortgaged to secure debts previously contracted, and also such as had 
been sold on executions in its own favor ; and the directors had been 
compelled to take real estate in order to avoid loss. On a part of it 
they had erected improvements to prepare it for sale, and thus had 
saved the stockholders from much loss. 

Of the allegations under the second general head, we can make room 
for but one, which was probably the subject of more general remark, as 
evidence of corrupt management, than 'any other. It was the loan of 
money to editors, and especially to Webb and Noah, proprietors and 
editors of the New York Courier and Enquirer; to whom $15,000 had 
been loaned at one time, and $20,000 at another. What had excited 



AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 57i 

suspicion in this case was, that this newspaper had been opposed to the 
bank, but had come out in its favor. Of the whole sum loaned, 
($35,000,) about one-half had been paid — the whole of the $15,000 
note, and $2,000 of the other. Mr. Webb had made to the directors a 
statement, sworn to by their book-keepers, of the value and income of 
their establishment, and showing a nett annual income of more than 
$25,000. With these exhibits, Mr. Webb presented a letter of Walter 
Bowne, mayor of New York, and formerly a director of the Bank of 
the United States, inclosing the application for the loan, and stating 
that " he did so with pleasure, and saw no reason against this being 
treated as a fair business transaction." That these transactions were so 
considered, the president and several of the directors testified on oath. 

To this testimony was added the fact, that Webb and Co. had in 
their paper declared themselves in favor of renewing the charter of the 
bank, four months before their application for the first loan ($20,000) 
was made. It was shown, too, that the other had not been received by 
them from the bank; but had been borrowed of the bank by Silas E. 
Burrows, a man of large fortune, upon his own responsibility, without 
the knowledge of Webb or Noah ; they both supposing, until near the 
time of the visit of the committee to the bank, that Mr. B. had obtained 
the money from his father. He had applied for the money, as Mr. 
Biddle testified, to befriend Mr. Noah, and assist him in purchasing a 
share of the newspaper of Mr. Webb. Mr. Biddle, from his own 
funds, gave Mr. Burrows the money, and took the notes into his own 
possession, and retained them for a long time, having no occasion to use 
the funds. They were subsequently entered on the books of the bank. 
On the 2d of March, 1831, Mr. Burrows paid the notes. The minority, 
(with the concurrence of Mr. Johnson, making a majority,) saw in these 
transactions nothing to induce them to doubt the honor or integrity of 
the directors, most of whom were men of independent fortunes, and 
having no connection with politics. 

The other allegations of the majority were severally met and disposed 
of by the minority, to the satisfaction, it is presumed, of the friends of 
the bank, if not to others. 

As has been observed, Mr. Adams alone submitted a third report, of 
very great length, generally in favor of the bank. Of this report we 
can not attempt even an analysis. A single subject will receive our 
attention ; being deemed necessary from its supposed bearing upon the 
character of the bank controversy, as well as from the consideration 
that certain facts disclosed by the investigation were not noticed or com- 
mented upon by the committee. They are thus alluded to by Mr. 
Adams : " They are not noticed in the report of the chairman, but, in 



572 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the opinion of the subscriber, are more deserving of ihe attention of 
congress and of the nation, than any other papers commented upon in 
the report." These papers tended to confirm the suspicions extensively 
entertained, that the opposition to the bank arose from an unsuccessful 
attempt, on the part of the executive department of the government, to 
acquire a political and pecuniary control over the proceedings of the 
bank and its branches. 

On the 1 1th of July, 1829, Mr. Ingham, secretary of the treasury, 
transmitted to Mr. Biddle a copy of a confidential letter from senator 
Woodbury, of N. H., containing a complaint against the president of 
the branch bank of the United States at Portsmouth, and stating that 
complaints of a similar nature had been suggested from other places, 
particularly from Kentucky and Louisiana. The charge was, that the 
influence of the bank was used "with a view to political effect." The 
letter of Mr. Woodbury represented the recent change in the presidency 
of the bank as generally dissatisfactory. He said : " The new president, 
Jeremiah Mason, is a particular friend of Mr. Webster, and his political 
character is well known to you." He said the people desired the removal 
of the present president ; and many of them had requested him to ask 
his (Mr. Ingham's) influence at the mother bank in producing a change. 

Mr. Biddle, in answer, says, that the inference of Mr. Woodbury's 
letter is, that the former president had been removed to make way for 
Mr, Mason with an increased salary, and that the bank was using its 
influence against the present administration. He thought this view of 
the subject erroneous. 1st. The presidency had not been changed by 
the bank ; the former president having declined serving, in consequence 
of advanced age and declining health. The bank had not desired a 
change. 2d. The salary had not been increased. Mr. Mason was only 
receiving an annual allowance as counsel for the bank, in addition to his 
salary. 3d. Mr Webster had had no agency in obtaining for him the 
appointment. 4th. He (Mi-. Biddle) was surprised that Mr. Woodbury 
should consider the complaints about Mr. Mason as having any connec- 
tion with politics ; and for this reason : Mr. Woodbury had written to 
him (Mr. B.) a letter on the same day on which he had written to him, 
(Mr. I.,) asking the removal of Mr. Mason. He (Mr. B.) had answered 
Mr. Woodbury's letter, and requested him to aid his inquiries, by stat- 
ing the nature of the complaints against Mr. Mason. 

In his reply to this request, Mr. Woodbury said : " It is due in per- 
fect frankness to state, that the president of the present board, as a 
politician, is not very acceptable to the majority of this town and state. 
But it is at the same time notorious, that the charges against him, iu 
his present office, originated exclusively with his political friends." 



AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 573 

This statement, that the complaints were made by Mr. Mason's political 
friends, Mr. Biddle thought irreconcilable with the statement of the 
same person to him, (Mr. Ingham,) that the bank was managed "with a 
view to political effect ;" and he expressed the opinion, that it would 
appear, " that Mr. Mason had had the courage to do his duty, whether 
he oflfended his political friends or not. He might have done his duty 
too rigidly; that was a fit subject for examination, and should be exam- 
ined." In another letter inclosed in the above, Mr. B. says : " It has 
been the settled policy of the institution, pursued with the most fastidi- 
ous care, to devote itself exclusively to the purposes for which it was 
instituted ; to abstain from all political contests." He said he had not, 
luring his long acquaintance with the bank, known a single instance of 
its perverting its power to any local or party purposes. He thought it 
as necessary to a successful administration of the government as to that 
of the bank, that the latter should be entirely independent of party 
influence. 

The secretary, in his answer, (July 23,) says, " it is impossible that 
the character of all the acts of the directors, much less their motives, 
could be known to the board ;" hence Mr. Biddle's declaration tbut bu 
loans had been made or withheld from party considerations ''must be 
received rather as evidence of his own feelings, than as conclusive proof 
of the fact so confidently vouched for." He claimed it as the right of 
the department " to which was assigned the direction of the relations 
between the government and the bank, to suggest its views as to their 
proper management." And he intimated his objection to a course of 
action, on the part of the bank, " that either resisted inquiry, or what 
was of the same tendency, entered upon it with a full persuasion that it 
was not called for." 

The directors, however, before this last letter was received, had deter- 
mined on a rigorous examination of the complaints against the adminis- 
tration of the branch at Portsmouth; and Mr. Biddle had already gone 
thither for that purpose. The letter was therefore answered Dy Gen, 
Cadwallader, acting president, by direction of the board. Among other 
things stated in the letter, he reiterated the opinion of the board, that 
no loans had been made or withheld from party considerations; and it 
needed not to be thought surprising, that, "while hundreds of thou- 
sands of our citizens, in the various pursuits of life, refuse to yield 
their honest convictions to party prejudices, a few hundred of our coun- 
trymen, carefully selected from the most independent, intelligent, and 
upright, should be found sufficiently honest to prefer their duty to their 
party." But if the offenses alleged should be found to exist in any 
quarter, the offenders would be promptly visited "with the utmost 
severity of censure and punishment." 



574 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

A short time previously to this, Mr. Isaac Hill, of New ITampshire, 
then secoud controller of the treasury at Washington, wrote to two of 
his friends at Philadelphia, and agreeably to the suggestions he had 
made to them when he saw them there, sent them two petitions to the 
president and directors of the bank, asking for a change in the board of 
directors at Portsmouth ; one of which was signed by about sixty mem- 
bers of the New Hampshire legislature. Mr. Hill remarked in this let- 
ter, that " the friends of Gen. Jackson in New Hampshire have had but 
too much reason to complain of the management of the branch at Ports- 
mouth." Of the ten persons named in the petition for directors, four 
were friends of the administration. 

About the same time, an effort was made, the object of which will be 
seen from the following extract of a letter from Mr. Mason to Mr. Bid- 
die, dated July 21, 1829 : " An attempt is making to remove the pen- 
sion agency from this office to Concord, in this state. During the ses- 
sion of our legislature, in June, a memorial was gotten up by Mr. Isaac 
Hill, second controller of the treasury of the United States, and signed 
by divers of his warm political partisans, and others particularly inter- 
ested in the matter, addressed to the secretary of the treasury, urging 
the central situation of Concord as a reason for the removal. Mr. Hill's 
object, doubtless, is to benefit a small bank at Concord, of which, till 
his removal to ^Yashington, he was the president." 

Then follows a letter from the secretary of war to Mr. Mason, direct- 
ing the books, papers, and funds of the New Hampshire pension agency 
to be transferred to "Wm. Pickering, of Concord. Mr. Mason objected 
to this order, as being contrary to law ; and it was eventually withdrawn. 
It may be known to every reader, that, by the charter of the bank, it 
was made the duty of the bank to make the disbursements of the public 
moneys for the government; hence the funds for paying pension claims, 
were placed for this purpose in the branches of the bank in the several 
localities ; and Mr. Mason denied the legality botli of the order of the 
secretary, aiid of his own right to surrender the pension funds, papers 
and books, as required. This opinion of Mr. Mason was sustained, in 
1832, by secretary Cass, Mr. Eaton's successor in the department of 
war. On account of the greater convenience to pensioners beyond the 
southern counties of the state of New York in the vicinity of New 
York city, the Mechanics' and Farmers' Bank in the city of Albany, 
had been selected as the medium through which pensions were to be paid. 
Against this Mr. Biddle had remonstrated as being illegal. But the 
agency was continued until after Mr. Cass's appointment ; who wrote offi- 
cially to Mr. Biddle, March 1, 1832: " I am satisfied, from a careful 
examination of tlie laws of congress, that this department is not war- 



AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 575 

ranted in appointing a pension agent in any state or territory where the 
United States bank has established one of its branches." 

Mr. Biddle, after his return from New Hampshire, in one of his let- 
ters to Mr. Ingham, notices the singular fact, that " on the eve of an 
election for an officer of this bank in New Hampshire, the senator from 
New Hampshire, the second controller from New Hampshire, the legis- 
lature of New Hampshire, the merchants of all parties in New i amp- 
shire, were all arrayed to complain of his abuses, and to show how loudly 
public opinion demanded his removal, just at the moment when the 
administration had declared to the bank, that public opinion was the 
only safe test of such accusations. * * * After a calm and thorough 
investigation, they (the board) found that all these accusations were 
entirely groundless; that the most zealous of his enemies did not ven- 
ture to assert that he had ever, on any occasion, been influenced by 
political feelings, and that this public opinion, so imposing in the mist 
of distance, degenerated into the personal hostility of a very limited, 
and, for the most part, very prejudiced circle. Mr. Mason was there- 
fore immediately reelected." 

Mr. Ingham, in reply, disclaimed any knowledge of Mr. Hill's move- 
ment against Mr. Mason. He claimed for the government a supervis- 
ing power over the bank, and a right to coerce it by withdrawing public 
deposits, and otherwise. " The bank," he said, " can not, if it would, 
avoid the action of the government in all its legitimate operations and 
policy, however disposed it might be after calculating the immensity of 
its coffers, and the expansion of its power, to assert a superiority or insen- 
sibility to such action. The pretension could only excite a smile. Com- 
pared to the government, the bank is essentially insignificant." He 
said, however, " No one can more fervently desire than I do, that the 
bank shall, in all its ramifications, be absolutely independent of party." 

Another letter from Mr. Biddle to Mr. Ingham, closes the correspon- 
dence; but any extracts from it are considered unnecessary. This cor- 
respondence terminated in October, about two months before the appear- 
ance of president Jackson's first annual message, disclosing his opposi- 
tion to the bank. 



^76 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



CHAPTEK XLVII. 

SOUTH CAROLINA ^^"J.LIFICATION. JACKSON's PROCLAMATION. FORCE 

BILL. COMPROMISE TARIFF. PEACE. LAND BILL. CLOSE OF JACK- 
SO S FIRST TERM. 

The anti-tariff excitement at the south continued without abatement. 
Public meetings, especially in the state of South Carolina, the addresses 
of M'Duffic, Hayne, Hamilton, and other high oflScials, and the acta 
and proceedings of the state legislature, kept the public mind in a state 
of effervescence. Forcible resistance, so long threatened, was at length 
resolved on, as " the last resort" — as the only remedy for the evils 
inflicted upon them by the general government. It is not improbable that 
the countenance given in several states to the doctrines of Hayne and 
others in the senate bad encouraged the Carolinians in their purposes 
of practical nullification. The legislatures of Virginia and Georgia 
had also asserted the principles of nullification ; but these states were 
unwilling to carry out those principles by a forcible opposition to the 
tariff laws. Georgia, however, had denied the authority of the supreme 
court to decide questions involving the validity of treaties, and of the 
laws of congress ; and the executive had sanctioned her construction 
of tho ^constitution. 

The note of preparation for collision with the general government was 
at length sounded. The legislature of South Carolina was convened by 
the governor the 22d of October, 1832, for the purpose of authorizing 
a convention " to consider the character and extent of the usurpations 
of the general government." An act was accordingly passed for a con- 
vention to be held on the 3d Monday of November. The passage of 
the act was hailed at the seat of government by the firing of cannon, 
and music from a band stationed near the doors of the capitol. The 
members of the minority, belonging to the "union, state 'rights and 
Jackson party," held a meeting, at which they declared their opposition 
to the nullification scheme, and appealed to the people of the state to 
discountenance it. 

The convention assembled on the 19th of November, and on the 
24th, adopted an ordinance declaring the tariff act null and void; 
making it unlawful for the authorities of either the general or state 
government to enforce the payment of duties within that state ; and 
enjoining the legislature to pass laws giving effect to the ordinance. 
No sanction was to be given to any appeal to the supreme court of the 



JACKSON S PROCLAMAllON. 577 

United States, from the decisions of the state courts, involving the 
authority of the ordinance, or the validity of any acts of the legislature 
giving effect thereto, or the validity of the tariff act of congress. All 
public officers were required to take an oath to obey and execute the 
ordinance, and the acts of the state passed in pursuance thereof. Any 
act that congress should pass to authorize the employment of force 
against South Carolina, was declared to be null and void, and would 
not be submitted to ; and from the time of its passage, the state would 
consider herself absolved from farther obligations to the union, and 
proceed to organize a separate government. The ordinance was to take 
effect the 1st of February, 1833. f 

The president, in his message to congress^in December, briefly 
alluded to the opposition to the revenue laws which had arisen in that 
state. He expressed the belief that the laws themselves were adequate 
to the suppression of any attempt that might be made to thwart their 
execution; but said: " Should the exigency arise, rendering the execu- 
tion of the existing laws impracticable, from any cause whatever, prompt 
notice of it will be given to congress, with a suggestion of such views 
and measures as may be deemed necessary to meet it." 

The message had scarcely been delivered, when intelligence of the 
passage of the ordinance by the South Carolina convention reached 
Washington. On the 11th of December was issued the celebrated pro- 
clamation of president Jackson, in which he stated his views of the con- 
stitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the conven- 
tion, and declared the course which duty would require him to pursue. 

A clearer, and, as is believed, a more correct exposition of the nature 
and powers of the general government is hardly to be found in any 
public document. The proclamation combatted the nullifying doctrine 
of the fipnvention, that there is no appeal from the decision of a state 
It regaraed reasoning on the subject superfluous, as the constitution of 
the United States expressly declared, that the constitution and the 
treaties and laws made under it, were " the supreme law of the laud," 
and that " the judges in every state were bound thereby, any thing in 
the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." 
Said the president : " No federative government could exist without a 
similar provision. Look for a moment at the consequence. If South 
Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right 
to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a 
clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and 
no revenue could be collected anywhere ; for all imposts must be equal. 
It is no answer to repeat, that an unconstitutional law is no law, so 
long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the state itself 

37 



5T6 THE AMER . AN STATESMAN. 

for every law operating injuriously upon local interests will be perhapa 
thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional; and, as has 
been shown, there is no appeal. 

" If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the union 
would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsyl- 
vania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the eastern states, the 
carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were 
more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained 
of; but fortunately none of those states discovered that they had the 
right now claimed by South Carolina. # * * 'pjjg discovery of this 
important feature in our constitution was reserved to the present day. 
To the statesmen of South Garolifta belongs the invention, and upon the 
citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to 
practice. • 

" If the doctrine of a state veto upon the laws of the union carries 
with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional 
history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudi- 
ated with indignation, had it been proposed to form a feature in our 
government." 

The president here adverts to the leagues formed during our colonial 
state ; and to the confederation. Every state was to " abide by the de- 
terminations of congress, on all questions, which, by the confederation, 
should be submitted to them." He said : " Under the confederation, 
then, no state could legally annul a decision of the congress, or refuse to 
submit to its execution ; but no provision was made to enforce these de- 
cisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. 
The government could not operate on individuals. They had no judi- 
ciary, no means of collecting revenue. * * * This state of things 
could not be endured ; and our present happy constitution was formed, 
but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevail." A " more perfect 
union" was then formed by " the people of the United States;" and he 
asks : " Can it be conceived that an instrument made for the purpose of 
forming a more perfect union than the confederation, could be so con- 
structed by the assembled wisdom of our country, as to substitute for 
that confederation a form of government dependent for its existence on 
the local interest, the party spirit of a state, or of a prevailing faction 
of a state?" He then says: " The constitution declares that the judi- 
cial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws 
of the United States, and that such laws, the constitution, and treaties 
Bball be paramount to the state constitutions and laws." 

In relation to the threat of seceding from the union, in case of an at- 
tempt to enforce the revenue laws, the president says : " This right to 



Jackson's proclamation, S79 

secede is deduced from the nature of the constitution, which, they say, is 
a compact between sovereign states who have preserved their whole 
sovereignty, and therefore are subject to no superior ; that because they 
made the compact, they can break it when, in their opinion, it has been 
departed from by the other states. Fallacious as this reasoning is, it 
enlists state pride, and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those 
who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see 
the radical error on which it rests." 

The nature of the union under the constitution is thus described : — 
" The people of the United States formed the constitution, acting through 
the state legislatures in making the compact, to meet and discuss its 
provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those 
provisions ; but the terms used in its construction, show it to be a gov- 
ernment in which the people of all the states collectively are represented. 
We are one people in the choice of the president and vice-president. 
Here the states have no other agency than to direct the mode in which 
the votes shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the 
votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of the states may have 
given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The 
people, then, and not the states, are represented in the executive branch. 

" In the house of representatives there is this diflference, that the peo- 
ple of one state do not, as in the case of president and vice-president, all 
vote for the same officers. The people of all the states do not vote for 
all the members, each state electing only its own representatives. But 
this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all repre- 
sentatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular 
state from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not 
by the state ; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in the per- 
formance of their legislative functions ; and however they may in prac- 
tice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their 
particular constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial 
or local interest, yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives 
of the United States, to promote the general good. 

" The constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, 
not a league ; and whether it be formed by compact between the states, 
or in any other manner, its character Is the same. It is a government 
in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the 
people individually, not upon. the states; they retained all the power 
they did not grant. But each state having expressly parted with so 
many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other states, a single na- 
tion, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such 
secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation ; 



580 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

and any injury to that unity is not only a breach ■which would resalt 
from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the 
whole union. To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the 
union, is to say that the United States are not a nation ; because it 
would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve 
its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without com- 
mitting any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may 
be morally justified by the extremity of oppression ; but to call it a con- 
stitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be 
done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert 
a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the 
penalties consequent on a failure. # * * 

'* Because the union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to 
that compact may, when they feel themsolves aggrieved, depart from it ; 
but it is precisely because it is a compact, that they can not. A com- 
pact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may, by its terms, have 
a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no 
sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt ; 
if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied 
penalty. A league between independent nations, generally, has no sanc- 
tion other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there 
is no common superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the 
contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied ; and, in our ease, 
it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt, by 
force of arms, to destroy a government, is an offense, by whatever means 
the constitutional compact may have been formed ; and such government 
has the right, by the law of self-defense, to pass acts to punish the 
offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed, by the 
constitutional act." 

" The assumed right of secession," he repeated, " rests on the alleged 
undivided sovereignty of the states, and on their having formed, in this 
sovereign capacity, a compact, which is called the constitution, from 
which, because they made it, they have the right to secede." This posi- 
tion he deemed erroneous, saying : " The states severally have not re- 
tained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that, in becoming 
parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of 
their parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, 
levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all of 
them functions of sovereign power. The states, then, for all these im- 
portant powers, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citi- 
zens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the 
United States ; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to 



JACKSOX'S PROCLAMATION. 581 

the constitution of the United States, and to the laws made in conformi- 
ty with the powers it vested in congress." 

The president admonishes the Carolinians not to incur the penalty of 
the laws, and tells them they have been deluded by men who were either 
deceived themselves, or wished to deceive others ; who had led the peo- 
ple to the brink of insurrection and treason, under the pretense, that 
the diminution of the price of their staple commodity, and the conse- 
quent diminution in the value of their lands, caused by over production 
in other quarters, were the sole effect of the tariff. And he mentioned 
the various arts and arguments and appeals of these men to induce them 
to enter this dangerous course. 

Again addressing his " fellow-citizens of the United States," he says • 
" The threat of unhallowed disunion, the names of those, once respected, 
by whom it is uttered, the array of military force to support it, denote 
the approach of a crisis in our affairs, on which the continuance of our 
unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all 
free governments, may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full, 
and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles 
.^of action ; and as the claim was asserted of a right by a state to annul 
the laws of the union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank ex- 
position of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our govern- 
ment, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was 
created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the just- 
ness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been 
expressed, I rely, with equal confidence, on your undivided support in 
my determination to execute the laws, to preserve the union by all con- 
stitutional means, to arrest, if possible, by moderate, but firm measures, 
the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of Heaven, 
that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a 
brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by 
any offensive act of the United States." 

The views expressed in the foregoing exposition of the nature and 
powers of the general government, are, as will be seen, the opposite of 
those claimed for the president by his friends in the " great debate " in 
the senate, in 1830. They are substantially those maintained by Mr. 
Webster and other opposition senators ; and they differ in no particular, 
it is believed, from the opinions expressed in that debate by senator 
Livingston, who was at this time secretary of state, and who had the 
credit of having prepared the proclamation. The authority so unquali- 
fiedly denied to the supreme court by Messrs. Hayne, Benton, Rowan, 
and other administration senators, is here fully acknowledged as well as 
ably maintained. 



582 THE AMERXAN STATESJTAN. 

Immediately after the adjournment of the South Carolina convention, 
on the 27th of November, 1832, the legislature assembled, and passed 
the laws necessary to give effect to the ordinance. These laws prohibit- 
ed the collection of the revenue by the officers of the United States, and 
placed at the command of the governor the militia of the state, to resist 
the enforcement of the laws. Arms and ammunition were ordered to be 
purchased, and all needful preparation was made for that purpose. 

The proclamation of the president met a most unwelcome reception in 
that state. It was denounced as a " declaration of war by Andrew 
Jackson against the state of South Carolina ;" the " edict of a dictator ;" 
a " federal manifesto, palmed upon us as Andrew Jackson's, by Living- 
ston or Van Buren, or some other intriguer behind the dictator's throne ;" 
and the people of the state were exhorted to " take up arms" as the 
" only course which honor and duty prescribed " for the defense of the 
state. The proclamation was received with equal disfavor by the legis- 
lature. In the house of representatives, Mr. Preston said : " We should 
hurl back instant scorn and defiance for this impotent missile of des- 
picable malignity. Of answer to its paltry sophisms and disgraceful 
invectives, it is utterly unworthy. But the country and the world 
should know how perfectly we despise and defy him ; and they should 
be told that before they plant such principles as his upon our free soil, 
the bones of many an enemy shall whiten our shores — the carcasses of 
many a caitiff and traitor blacken our air." The governor was request- 
ed to issue a proclamation, warning the people not to be seduced by the 
president from their allegiance ; " exhorting them to disregard his vaiu 
menaces, and to be prepared to sustain the dignity, and protect the 
liberty of the state." 

The governor of the state at this time was Mr. Hayne, who had just 
been elected, and whose place in the senate of the United States had 
been supplied by the appointment of Mr. Calhoun, who had for this pur- 
pose resigned the office of vice-president in the latter part of December. 
A proclamation was accordingly issued by Gov. Hayne. It opposes that 
of the president by a constitutional exposition similar to that contained 
in his speeches in 1830; and, claiming for the states " nulliScation as 
the rightful remedy," he requires the people of the state to protect their 
liberties, "if need be, with their lives and fortunes ;" concluding with an 
invocation to " that great and good Being, who, as a ' father, careth for 
his children,' to inspire them with that holy zeal in a good cause, 
which is the best safeguard of their rights and liberties." 

Orders were also issued for increasing the military force of the state; 
and the governor was authorized to accept the services of volunteers, 
who were to be ready to take the field at a moment's warning, " to sup- 



FORCE BILL. 583 

press insurrection, repel invasion, or support the civil authorities in the 
execution of the laws." The " union party" men, however, were deter- 
mined to sustain the general government. 

The belligerent proceedings of the Carolina legislature were followed, 
on the 16th of January, 1833, by a message of the president to congress, 
communicating the proceedings of South Carolina, and suggesting the 
adoption of such measures as the crisis seemed to demand. A bill was 
reported by the judiciary committee, empowering the president to employ 
the land and naval forces of the union, to enforce the collection of the 
revenue, if resistance should be offered. 

While preparations were making for the expected conflict, measures 
were in progress designed to avert the dreaded calamity. The state of 
Virginia assumed the office of mediator. Resolutions were adopted by 
the legislature, requesting South Carolina to rescind her nullifying ordi- 
nance, or at least to suspend its operation until the close of the first 
session of the next congress ; requesting congress gradually and speedily 
to reduce the revenue from duties on imports to the standard of the 
necessary expenditures of the government ; and reasserting the doctrines 
of state sovereignty and state rights as set forth in the resolutions of 
1798, which neither sanc'^ioned the ordinance of South Carolina, nor 
countenanced all the principles of the proclamation, many of which, they 
said, were in direct conflict with them. It was also resolved to appoint 
a commissioner to proceed to South Carolina, with the resolutions, and 
communicate them to the governor, to be laid before the legislature ; 
and to expostulate with the pul^lic authorities and people of that state 
for the preservation of the peace of the union. Benjamin Watkins 
Leigh was appointed to the mission. 

Another measure having in view the conciliation of the southern op- 
ponents of the tariff, was a new attempt to modify the tariff. The secre- 
tary of the treasury in his report to congress urged a reduction of the 
duties to the revenue standard ; and in the house, the subject was re- 
ferred to the committee of ways and means. On the 27th of December, 
Mr. Verplanck, chairman, reported a bill, proposing a gradual reduction 
of duties, within two years, to little more than half the rates under 
former tariffs. The discussion of this bill continued until late in Feb- 
ruary, less than two weeks before the close of the session ; having under- 
gone so many amendments as almost to have lost its identity. Although 
there was little prospect of its passage at this session, the friends of a 
protecting tariff feared that another attempt would be made in the next 
congress, and perhaps with success, to destroy protection. 

Under this apprehension, and while the "bill to provide further for. 
the collection of the duties on imports," or " force bill," was still pend- 



^•■i 



584 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ing in the senate, Mr. Clay, on the 12tli of February, 1833, introduced 
his compromise tariff bill, which he explained and supported by a speech 
of considerable length. The bill had two objects : one was to prevent 
the destruction of the tariff policy, which was in imminent danger ; the 
other, to avert civil war, and restore peace and tranquillity to the country 
By the provisions of this bill, as finally passed, in all cases where the 
duties on foreign goods exceeded 20 per cent., the excess was to be 
gradually deducted by the 30th day of September, 1842, thus : one- 
tenth from and after the 30th day of December, 1833; another tenth 
after the 30th day of September, 1835, and another tenth every second 
/ear thereafter, until the 30th of September, 1841 ; after which day, 
3ne-half of the remaining excess; and after the 30th of September, 
1842, the residue of such excess. It was provided, however, that the 
duty on coarse woolens costing not more than 35 cts. the square yard, 
which had, by the tariff act of 1832, been reduced to 5 per cent., should 
first be raised to 50 per cent., the same as was charged on other woolens. 
To the list of articles free of duty, after the 30th of September, 1833, 
were added, linens, silk manufactures coming from this side of the Cape 
of Good Hope, and worsted stuff goods; and after 1842, a large number 
of other articles, most of them, however, such as were not produced in 
this country, or as did not need protection. After 1842, however, on all 
goods then free, or paying a less duty than 20 per cent., congress might, 
at discretion, impose duties not exceeding 20 per cent, on the home valu- 
ation ; and all duties were, after 1842, to be paid in cash, and credits 
abolished. 

On the question of granting leave to introduce the bill, the objection 
was made by some senators, that bills for raising revenue, (and such were 
all tariff bills,) could originate only in the house of representatives. On 
the other hand it was contended, that this being a bill to reduce the 
revenue, its originating in the senate was not prohibited by the consti- 
tution. 

The opposition to the bill was chiefly from the advocates of protec- 
tion. Mr. Webster opposed the bill, because, in giving up specific duties 
and substituting ad valorem,^ the bill abandoned the protective policy. 
It seemed to surrender the constitutional power of protection. He 
opposed it because it restricted the future legislation of congress. After 
a few of the first reductions, the manufacturers of some kinds of goods 
would be ruined. Of these goods were boots, shoes, and clothing. 
Calico printing establishments would be broken up. Woolen establish- 
ments could not stand with a duty of 20 per cent. The protection on 
iron, too, was insufficient. The change from specific to ad valorem 



COMPROMISE TARIFF. 585 

duties would be injurious. The surrender once made, we cjuld never 
return to the present state of things. 

Mr. Clay replied. He said the honorable gentleman apprehended no 
danger to the tariff. Witness the recent elections — the message of the 
president — the opposition of a majority of the friends of the administra- 
tion to the tariff. The protection afforded by the bill would be ample 
for several years, during which period manufactures would acquire 
strength. He was willing the manufacturers themselves should decide 
the question ; many of them, then in Washington, and others from whom 
he had received letters, had expressed themselves in favor of the bill. 
They now would know what to depend on, and could regulate their opera- 
tions accordingly. He did not fear any misconstruction of the pledge con- 
tained in the bill ; and he hoped the manufacturers would go on and 
prosper, confident that the abandonment of protection was never intended, 
and looking to more favorable times for a renewal of a more effective 
tariff. Mr. C. also replied to the remarks of gentlemen who would 
enforce the collection of duties under the existing laws, without making 
any concession to South Carolina. He said : " The opponents of the 
bill rely on force ; its friends cry out force and affection. One side 
cries out, power ! power ! power ! The other side cries out, power, but 
desires to see it restrained and tempered by discretion and mercy, 
and not create a couflagration from one end of the union to the other." 

On the day of the above debate, (Feb. 25,) on motion of Mr. Letcher, 
of Kentucky, the committee of the whole, in the house of representatives, 
struck out the body of Mr. Verplanck's bill, and inserted that of Mr. 
Clay, from the senate. It was ordered the same day to its third read- 
ing ; ayes, 105 ; noes, 71 ; and on the next day it was passed, 118 to 84. 

On the first of March, the bill as passed by the house, was again 
taken up in the senate, and supported by Messrs. Calhoun, Ewing, 
Maugum, Clayton, Frelinghuysen, Sprague, Holmes, Bibb, and Clay ; 
and opposed by Messrs. Robbins, Dallas, Webster, Silsbee, Forsyth, 
and Wright, the last objecting, among other things, to the abolition of 
specific and discriminating duties. Both he and Mr. Forsyth, however, 
voted for the bill, probably on the ground of its being a measure of paci- 
fication. The vote on its passage was, ayes, 29 ; noes, 16. 

The final passage of the " enforcement bill," was delayed in the 
senate, until the 20th of February, when it was passed : ayes, 32 ; nays 
1 — Mr. Tyler ; other senators opposed to the bill, having withdrawn. 
It passed the house on the 28th : ayes, 150 ; noes, 35. 

The nullifying acts of South Carolina were to go into effect the first 
of February. Their operation, however, was suspended. The interpo- 
sition of Virginia would seem to have been most effectual, having accom« 
plished its object in advance of the arrival of commissioner Leigh iu 



586 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

South Carolina. Gov. Hayne, in answer to the communication of Mr. 
Leigh, conveying the request of the state of Virginia, said as soon as it 
was known that that state had taken up. the subject in a friendly spirit, 
and that a bill for the modification of the tariff was before congress, it 
was determined, by common consent, to suspend the operation of the 
ordinance until after the adjournmentx)f congress. The passage of the 
compromise tariff act, ' though not altogether acceptable, was gladly 
accepted as furnishing an ostensible reason for retreating from the unen- 
viable position she had rashly assumed. The convention was reassem- 
bled on the 1 1th of March, at the call of the governor ; and the nullifying 
ordinance was repealed on the alleged ground of the modification of the 
tariff, and the friendly disposition of the state of Virginia, 

The enforcing act, however, was roundly reprobated. The president 
of the convention, on its reassembling, pronounced the act of congress 
" to coerce a sovereign state in this union," a " broad usurpation." As 
far as its authority extended, it " changed the character of our govern- 
ment into a military despotism." 

The committee of the union convention, appointed to fix the time and 
place for its reassembling, considering peace restored, postponed indefi- 
nitely the contemplated meeting ; stating, however, that if new acts of 
tyranny by the dominant party should call for opposition, the convention 
would be convoked. 

As was expected. South Carolina claimed the glory of a triumph. 
The sentiments of the nullifying party generally, were correctly ex- 
pressed in the following, from one of its leading newspapers : " Never 
was there a prouder instance of the might of just principles, backed by 
a high courage. This little state, in the mere panoply of courage and 
high principles, has foiled the swaggering giant of the unioni 30.600 
Carolinians have not only awed the wild west into respect — compelled 
Pennsylvania stolidity into something like sense — New York corruption 
into something like decency — Yankee rapacity into a sort of image of 
honesty ; but, (alluding to the union party,) all this has been loftily and 
steadily done in the face of 17,000 — what shall we call them? What 
epithet is of a shame, wide, lasting and deep enough, for the betrayers of 
the liberties of their own country — the instigators of merciless slaugh- 
ter — the contrivers of irretrievable servitude, against their own strug- 
gling state ? 

" The tariff, then, is overthrown ; the corrupt majorities in congress 
have yielded. The madness of the government has, at last, found a slight 
lucid interval." Speaking of " Wilkins' bill ; the ' bloody bill,' " as the 
collection act was called, the editor said he believed it had been 
passed " in mere bravado, only to cover the shame of their defeat ;" 



LAND BILL. 587 

it was " quite certain that it would not be submitted to by that 
state." 

The three union members of congress, Blair, Drayton, and Mitchell, 
were denounced as " natural wretches" — " miscreants" — for having voted 
for the " bloody bill." 

A writer in the Charleston Mercury, indulging in a pious vein, said : 
" Who does not perceive in this the hand of the Almighty, supporting 
the cause of the oppressed, and turning even the heart of the oppressor 
to the purposes of justice ? * * * What less than that Power could 
have torn Mr. Clay from his darling policy, and from all his cherished 
notions of government, and have induced him to sacrifice them all upon 
the altar of peace and union ?" The editor remarked in relation to the 
passage of the enforcing bill : " It may be considered as nothing more 
than an ebullition of spleen. It will record the spite of the administra- 
tion against certain men, and show what enormities it would perpetrate, 
were the opportunity afforded. Our convention will do no more than 
declare it void ; and it will remain dead upon the statute book, a monu- 
ment of the corruption of the times, a record of treason to the constitu- 
tion and liberty, which its authors will ere long wish in vain to have 
utterly erased from the memory of the republic." 

The bill of Mr. Clay, to distribute, for a limited time, the proceeds 
of the sales of public lands, which passed the senate at the preceding ses- 
sion, was renewed at the session of 1832-33, and with some amendments, 
passed both houses : the senate by a vote of 24 to 20 ; the house, 96 to 
40. An amendment had been made to it in the house, restricting the 
application of the funds accruing to the several states, to three objects, 
education, internal improvement and colonization. This amendment was 
concurred in by the senate on the 1st of March, the last day but one of 
the session, the 3d of March happening this year on Sunday. The bill 
was sent to the president for his approval, but was not returned by him 
until the next session. It was believed that, had it been returned, it 
would have passed both houses by the constitutional majority of two- 
thirds, notwithstanding the president's objections. 

Censures were unsparingly bestowed upon the president for his having 
retained the bill. His friends, however, considered his course fully jus- 
tified by the lateness of the hour at which the bill was received, which 
rendered it impossible to give it due consideration, and to prepare a 
statement of his objections. 

On the 5th of December, 1833, the veto message, returning the bill, 
was received by the senate. The following were the principal objections 
stated in the message : 

The bill contemplated no permanent arrangement. Being limited to 



588 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

five years, the question of the disposition of the public lands would again 
become a source of agitation. 

The rule of distribution proposed, was in violation of the condition on 
which they were ceded by the states. They were to be disposed of for 
the common benefit of the states, according to their respective propor- 
tions in ttie general charge and expenditure, and for no other purpose. 
But the bill provided that twelve and a half per cent, should be taken 
out of the net proceeds of the sales, for the benefit of the states in which 
the lands were, before the general distribution was made ; and then the 
ratio of distribution was not to be according to the genei-al charge and 
expenditure, but in proportion to the federal representative population. 

It was also liable to a constitutional objection. It would create a 
surplus revenue for distribution among the states ; and it reasserted the 
principle contained in the Maysville road bill of 1 830, proposing to ap- 
propriate public money for local objects. 

Besides, the proposed measure would be of no advantage to either the 
old or new states. Whatever was taken from the treasury in this way, 
must be replaced by collections from the people through other means. 

Mr. Clay indulged in strong censures of the president for retaining 
the bill. It had passed the senate at the session before the last, and, 
having been before the country a whole year, and been made the subject 
of commentary by the president himself in his message, at the last 
session, it must have been understood by him. The shortness of tho 
session, therefore, ought not to have prevented the return of the bill. 

Mr. Benton vindicated the president. Of the one hundred and forty- 
two acts of the last session, about ninety were signed on the last day of 
the session, and thus a mass of business had been thrown on the president 
which it was almost impossible to perform. And now the people were 
called on to revolt, because the president had not on that day, in addi- 
tion to this mass of business, written the paper now read, and sent the 
bill back. He had made up his mind in opposition to the bill, but no 
human hands could have written out the document itself 

Mr. Clay, rejoining, said this press of business occurred with every 
president on the day before the termination of the short session of con- 
gress. But how did it happen that the president could find time to 
decide upon so many new bills of most of which he had never heard, and 
yet had not time to dispose of one upon which he had long before pro- 
nounced judgment ? Mr. C. denied that the constitution gave the presi- 
dent ten days to consider bills at the short session. To guard against a 
sudden adjournment, depriving him of due time to consider an important 
bill, the constitution allowed him ten days ; but the short session termi- 
nated not by adjournment, but by a dissolution of congress, on the 3d 



LAND BILL. 580 

of March, a day fixed by the constitution, and known to all. Therefore, 
the act of withholding the bill was unconstitutional and arbitrary ; hv 
which congress had been deprived of the right of passing on the bill 
after it had been considered by the president. If he had not had time 
to lay his reasons before the senate, respect to congress required of him 
at least a communication to that effect. 

Mr. Benton said that no quorum sat in either house on the evening 
after the day on which the bill was sent to the president. 

A new bill similar to the former, was introduced by Mr. Clay, and 
referred, with the veto message, to the committee on public lands. The 
committee reported the bill to the senate, with a review of all the ob- 
jections of the president. Only two points will be here noticed. The 
president had, in his annual message of 1832, and again in the veto 
message, suggested, as the proper mode of disposing of the public lands, 
that the price should be graduated, and after they had been offered for 
a certain number of years, those remaining should be abandoned to the 
states in which they lie. This plan, he said, would violate no compact. 
Now if it was inconsistent with the deeds of cession to distribute one- 
eighth part of the proceeds of the lands to the new states, how could it 
be otherwise to relinquish the whole of the lands after a few years, to 
those states ? The distribution proposed by the bill did not introduce 
a new principle. It had ever been the practice of congress to make 
grants of land for the benefit of the new states. Eight millions of 
acres had been thus granted. 

The committee agreed with the president that the lands were ceded on 
condition that they should be disposed of for the common benefit of the 
states, and for no other purpose whatever ; and that the public debt 
might be considered as now paid, and the lands consequently released 
from the lien. But they did not agree with him that the power of con- 
gress over all the public lands remained the same under the constitution 
as under the confederation. Most of them had been acquired by treaty. 
These were not affected either by the articles of confederation, or by the 
deeds of cession ; and congress could dispose of them at discretion. And 
the practice had been to extend this power even to the ceded lands. It 
was impossible to say whether each state did derive benefit from the 
public lands in proportion to its charge in the general expenditure, as 
the amount of contribution could not be ascertained. That clause in 
the deeds of cession had been inserted in reference to the articles of con- 
federation, by which the contribution of each state was fixed and known; 
whereas, revenue was now collected, not from states in their sovereign 
character, but from the mass of the community, according to consumption. 
The committee on public lands in the house, made a report at this scs- 



590 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

sion iu favor of reduoing and graduating the price , and a similar pro- 
position was made by Mr. Benton in the senate. But no decisive action 
on the subject was taken in either house. 

The first term of Gen. Jackson's administration, which closed the 
3d of March, 1833, was distinguished no less by the unusual number 
of important questions which were decided under it, than by the general 
agitation of the public mind produced by the manner in which many of 
these questions were determined. Respecting its effects upon the inter- 
ests of the country, public sentiment was much divided. This diflfer- 
ence of opinion was principally confined to the domestic policy of the 
administration. Even its opponents acknowledged our foreign relations, 
except in the case of the West India arrangement, to have been ably 
conducted. A commercial treaty was concluded with Austria; a treaty 
with the Ottoman Porte, (Turkey;) a treaty with the kingdom of the 
Two Sicilies, by which $1,720,000 was to be paid, as an indemnity for 
claims of citizens of the United States for depredations upon our com- 
merce by the king of Naples, (Murat,) from 1809 to 1812. A treaty 
of commerce, and one relating to boundary, were concluded with Mexico. 

An important treaty with France also was concluded at Paris, in 1831, 
by Mr. Bives, on the part of the United States, by which the long 
standing difficulties between the two countries were adjusted. The claim 
of our government for spoliations, so long resisted by a counter claim 
for the alleged non-performance on our part of the stipulation in the 
treaty of 1778, guarantying to France assistance in defending her West 
India islands against the attacks of Great Britain, was determined by 
this treaty. The sum stipulated to be paid as indemnity to American 
citizens for property taken, was 25 millions of francs, or nearly 
$5,000,000; which, though not exceeding one-half or one-third of the 
original claim, was probably as much as there was reason to expect : and 
it was no inconsiderable point gained, that a long pending negotiation 
was at length brought to an amicable termination. French claims 
against the United States, to the amount of 1,500,000 francs, were 
iillowcd to that government; and a claim of France for duties on her 
shipping in the ports of Louisiana, from which she claimed exemption 
by the provisions of the Louisiana treaty, was yielded iu the negotiation. 
As a consideration for the abandonment of this claim, French wines 
were to be admitted, for ten years, at very low rates of duty ; and 
France stipulated to reduce the duties on American long staple cottons 
to the rates charged on short staple cottons. 

By the terms of the treaty, the French debt was payable in six annual 
instalments, the first of which became due the 2d of February, 1833. 
A bill drawn on the French government, and to be sold on the best 



THE BANK CONTUOVERSY. 591 

terms that could be obtained, was purchased by the bank of the United 
States, and presented for payment ; but no appropriation having been 
made for that purpose by the chamber of deputies, the bill was dishon- 
ored. The subject was discussed at several successive sessions of the 
deputies, without making the necessary appropriations. 



CHAPTER XLVm. 

THE BANK CONTROVERSY. REMOVAL OF DEPOSITS. — BANK INVESTIGATION. 

The second term of Gen. Jackson's administration commenced the 
4th of March, 1833. The southern excitement having been effectually 
allayed by a modification of the tariff in which the south had agreed to 
acquiesce, and the presidential contest having been decided by the 
triumphant reelection of the incumbent who could not be suspected of 
any future political aims ; a more tranquil state of the public mind dur- 
ing the ensuing term, was generally anticipated. The settlement of the 
bank question also, at least for the official term of Gen. Jackson, had 
strengthened the general expectation of a comparatively peaceful admin- 
istration. As the event will show, however, causes of high political ex- 
citement were not wanting, among which the bank controversy was by 
no means the least. 

The question as to the recharter of the bank having been determined, 
it was next intended to withdraw from it the public deposits, under the 
expressed apprehension that they were not safe in that institution. lu 
his last annual message, (December, 1832,) the president said: "Such 
measures as are within the reach of the secretary of the treasury, have 
been taken to enable him to judge whether the public deposits in this 
institution may be regarded as entirely safe ; but as his limited power 
may prove inadequate to this object, I recommend the subject to the 
attention of congress, under the firm belief that it is worthy of their 
serious investigation. An inquiry into the transactions of the institu- 
tion, embracing the branches as well as the principal bank, seems called 
for by the credit which is given throughout the country to many serious 
charges impeaching its character, and which, if true, may justly excite 
the apprehension, that it is no longer a safe depository of the money of 
the people." 

The " measure" taken by secretary M'Lane to ascertain the security of 



592 THL AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the public money, was the appointment of Henry Toland to make the 
investigation. Mr. T. reported to the secretary the 4th of December, 
the day of the date of the message, that the liabilities of the bank 
amounted to $37,296,950 ; and the fund to meet them, $79,593,870 ; 
showing an excess of $42,296,920. As all its liabilities must be first 
paid in case of insolvency or dissolution, he considered the security of 
the public money, unquestionable. Nor was there any doubt of the 
solvency of the bank. 

The committee of ways and means also, to whom were referred the 
transactions of the bank, in relation to the payment of the public debt, 
and the inquiry into the present pecuniary and financial state and man- 
agement of the institution, made a report through Mr. Verplanck, chair- 
man, at a later period of the session, showing the resources of the bank 
to be upwards of $43,000,000 beyond its liabilities, and concluding with 
a resolution, " That the government deposits, may, in the opinion of 
the house, be safely continued in the bank of the United States." 

The resolution was opposed by Mr. Polk, who thought it uunecessary 
to sustain the credit of the bank by adopting this resolution. Whenever 
the secretary of the treasury deemed the deposits in the bank unsafe, it 
was made his duty to withdraw them, and to lay his reasons before con- 
gress. After replies from Messrs. Ingersoll, of Conn., and 3I'Duffie, 
the resolution was adopted : ayes, 109 ; noes, 46. 

The 2d session of the 22d congress was closed the 3d day of March, 
1833, by the expiration of its ofl&cial term. In May, William J. Duane 
of Pennsylvania, was appointed secretary of the treasury, in the place of 
Mr. M'Lane, who was transferred to the head of the state department, 
made vacant by the appointment of Mr. Livingston as minister to France. 

The president, having determined on the withdrawal of the deposits 
from the bank of the United States, appointed Amos Kendal to confer 
with state banks in relation to future deposits and distribution of the 
pviblic revenue. On the 18th of September, he read to the cabinet a 
manifesto, giving his reasons for removing the deposits, among which 
wore, his belief of the dangerous tendency of the bank, and his suspicions 
that its motive in asking for a recharter was to influence the presidential 
election. Documents and articles had been printed and circulated, at 
the expense of the bank, to influence public sentiment. The people had, 
Dy electing him, decided against its recharter, and he desired to evince 
his gratitude by carrying their decision into efi'ect. He assigned, as 
additional reasons, the necessity of a new arrangement before the disso- 
lution of the bank, the misapplication of public funds, its efi'orts to 
deprive the government directors of a full knowledge of its concerns ; and 
an attempt to induce the holders of a portion of the three per cent, stocks, 



THE BANK CONTROVERSY. 593 

not to demand payment for one or more years after notice should be 
given by the treasury department. 

The charge against the bank of having expended money for political 
purposes, was founded upon a disclosure made by four of the government 
directors. Resolutions had been adopted by the board, authorizing the 
president of the bank, at his discretion, " to cause to be prepared and cir- 
culated such documents and papers as might communicate to the people 
information in regard to the nature and operations of the bank." About 
$80,000 were alleged to have been expended in the years 1831 and 
1832, under these resolutions, for the printing of congressional speeches, 
reports, and other documents, and for the purchase of pamphlets and 
newspapers, designed to operate on elections, and to secure a renewal of 
the charter. These directors had proposed the rescinding of these reso- 
lutions ; but the board, instead of favoring the proposition, adopted a 
resolution, commending "the wisdom and integrity of the president," 
and requesting him " to continue his exertions for the promotion of said 
object." 

With respect to the postponement of the payment of the public debt, 
the president alleged, that in sixteen months ending in May, 1832, the 
bank had extended its loans more than $28,000,000, although it knew 
the government intended to appropriate most of its large deposit during 
that year in payment of the public debt. Sensible of its inability to pay 
over the deposits, a secret negotiation was commenced for the holding 
back of about $2,700,000 of the three per cent, stock held in Holland. 
Having been informed by the secretary of his intention to pay off one- 
half of the three per cents on the 1st of July following, which amounted 
to about $6,500,000, the president of the bank came forthwith to Wash- 
ington, under the pretext of accommodating the importing merchants of 
New York, (which it had failed to do,) and undertaking to pay the inter- 
est itself, procured the consent of the secretary, after consultation with 
the president, to postpone the payment until the 1st of October. Con- 
scious that it would then be unable to pay, and that no farther indul- 
gence was to be had of the government, an agent was sent secretl}^ to 
England to negotiate with the holders of public debt in Europe to hold 
back their claims for one year, offering them an increased rate of interest. 
Thus the bank expected to retain the use of $5,000,000 of money which 
the government should set apart for the payment of that debt. Tho 
president believed, had all these facts been known at the last session of 
congress, the house of representatives would have come to a different 
conclusion. 

The law declared that the deposits should be made in the bank and 
its branches, "unless the secretary of the treasury should at any time 



594 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

otherwise order and direct, in which case he should immediately lay 
before congress, if in session, and if not, immediately after the commence- 
ment of the ntxt session, the reason of such order and direction." This, 
said the president, gave the secretary unqualified power over the depo- 
sits ; the provision that he should report his reasons being no limitation 

Mr. Duane, having been directed to remove the deposits, and declining 
to obey the direction, addressed the president a letter on the 21st of 
September, accompanied by a copy of his commission ; a copy of his 
oath of ofl&ce, pledging himself to execute his official trust with fidelity ; 
a copy of the section of the law chartering the bank committing to him 
alone the discretion to discontinue the deposits therein ; an extract from 
a letter of the president of the 26th of June, promising not to interfere 
with that discretion ; and an extract from his exposition to the cabinet 
of the 18th instant, in which he had stated that he did not expect him 
(Duane) to do, at his order or dictation, any act which he believed to be 
illegal, or which his conscience condemned. And he also gave his 
reasons for refusing to carry the directions into efi'ect ; among which 
were, that the change, without necessity, was a breach of faith ; that the 
measure appeared vindictive and arbitrary ; that, if the bank had abused 
its powers, the judiciary, and in the last resort, the representatives of 
the people, were able and willing to punish ; that the latter had at the 
last session pronounced the deposits safe ; that it was hazardous to place 
them in the local banks, which were not, on an average, able to pay in 
specie one dollar in six of their paper in circulation ; that it would place 
in the hands of a secretary, dependent for office on the executive will, 
a power to favor or punish those banks, and make them political 
machines; that he believed the efforts to hasten the removal of the 
deposits, had originated in schemes to promote selfish and factious pur- 
poses ; and that persons and presses in the confidence and pay of the 
administration had attempted to intimidate and constrain the secretary 
to execute an act in direct opposition to his own solemn convictions. 

The refusal of secretary Duane was followed, on the 23d, by his remo- 
val, and the appointment of Roger B. Taney, then attorney-general, in 
his place. Benjamin F. Butler, of New York, was appointed to the 
office of attorney-general. Mr. Taney, coucirring with the president in 
his views on the subject of the removal of the deposits, directed their 
removal to the state banks selected as the fiscal agents of the govern- 
ment. 

This act was the causj of an unusual excitement, and of general dis- 
cussion. That it would be strongly reprehended by the opponents of 
the administration, who were generally friendly to the bank, was to have 
bt\'u expected. Jiut the dissatibfaction was not confined to that party. 



REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 595 

Many of the president's friends concurred in condemning tlie act, not 
merely as inexpedient and unnecessary, but as an arbitrary exercise of 
power ; others expressed their disapproval in more moderate terms. 
Of the former class was a writer in a Charleston paper, who, in rela- 
tion to the conduct of the president, observed : " He has usurped to 
himself the right of disposing and removing, as he pleases, the reve- 
nues of the country, and thus virtually of establishing banks, without 
even the consent of'congress, or of any other branch of the federal govern- 
ment, to the whole of whose branches combined this competency has 
been so frequently denied, not only by himself, but by many of our most 
able and illustrious statesmen from the time of the immortal Jefferson." 
Of the latter class was Mr. Ritchie, the well known editor of the Rich- 
mond Enquirer, who said : " If these (the president's) views were not 
conclusive upon the mind of the secretary, it appears to us that the pre- 
sident ought to have been content with doing his duty, and leaving the 
responsibility where the law had left it, in the hands of the secretary. 
The president might have, in the mean time, obtained information as to 
the best mode of depositing the public money in the state banks. For 
this cause alone he should not have removed the secretary, and appointed 
a substitute. * * * "^''e doubted the policy of the measure in rela- 
tion to the bank as well as to the public. We also entertain doubts 
about the power of the president to control the ■ administration of the 
treasury department in this behalf" 

The directors of the bank having appointed a committee to whom 
were referred the president's paper read to the cabinet on the 18th of 
September, and that of the government directors, to which allusion has 
just been made, this committee made their report to a meeting of the 
board of directors on the 3d of December, which was adopted, 12 to 3. 
The report is very long and elaborate, and designed as a full vindica- 
tion of their course and a refutation of the charges brought against it 
by its opponents. 

It commences with an allusion to some of the efforts made in the 
summer of 1829, to effect the removal of Mr. Mason and the public 
funds from the branch at Portsmouth, with the view to satisfy Mr. Isaac 
Hill, who requested a change, because " the friends of Gen. Jackson 
had but too much reason to complain of the management of the branch 
at Portsmouth;" manifesting thus early " a combined effort to render 
the institution subservient to party purposes." Hence it became neces- 
sary to come to some immediate and distinct understanding of its rights 
and duties. Extracts from the correspondence between Mr. Biddle and 
the treasury department are given, in which he maintained, that the 
management of the bank was committed to twenty-five directors, who 



596 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

were responsible to congress alone ; and no executive officer from the 
president down had authority to interfere in it. " These extracts," the 
report said, " revealed the whole secret of the hostility to the bank of 
those who, finding it impossible to bend it to their purposes, had resolved 
to break it." 

The president had said, that " the money was to be deposited in the 
bank duriug the continuance of its charter, unless the secretary of the 
treasury should otherwise direct ;" and, " unless the secretary first acted, 
congress had no power over the subject." He had declared that " the 
power of the secretary over the deposits was unqualified," and that he 
did not " require that any member of the cabinet should at his request, 
order or dictation, perform any act M'hich he believed unlawful, or his 
conscience condemned;" yet the moment the secretary refused to do what 
his conscience condemned, he was dismissed from office, and denounced 
in the official gazette as a " refractory subordinate." 

The report said, the paper read to the cabinet not having brought a 
majority of its members into his views, the subject was postponed, and 
in the mean time this document was put into the newspapers, as was 
believed, for two reasons : the first was to influence the members of the 
cabinet by bringing to bear upon their immediate decision the first pub- 
lic impression excited by that document ; and secondly, to affect the 
approaching elections in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey ; as 
was indicated by the triumphant exultation of the Globe at the result 
of the elections in these states, and by its ascribing the same in part to 
the expositions of the corruptions of the bank, read by the president to 
the cabinet. 

The directors pronounced the removal " a violation of the rights of 
the bank and of the laws of the country." The bank had paid a bonus 
of $1,500,000, and had agreed to render other services, for the use of 
the government deposits ; and they could not be taken out but for rea- 
sons which the secretary must lay before congress. The purpose of 
giving this power of removal was obviously to prevent loss to the reve- 
nue ; and this seemed to have been so considered by the president him- 
self, when, in his message, he suggested the inquiry into the safety of 
the public moneys. But even if there were other reasons for their remo- 
val, the secretary alone had the power to remove them. They also 
adverted to the acts establishing the several departments, from which it 
appeared, that the secretaries of state, war, and the navy, were to exe- 
cute the orders of the president, and make their reports to him, and the 
secretary of the treasury was to report and give information directly to 
congress. Tn the charter of the bank, there was not a single power given 
to the president over its administration, except in the provision author- 



BANt INVESTIGATION. 597 

.zing congress or the president to order a writ of scire facias, requiring 
the corporation to show cause why the charter should not be declared 
void. 

The directors say : " The main purpose of the president's manifesto 
appears to be, to prove that the bank was unfriendly to his election ; 
and he endeavors to trace this opposition to him and his measures : 

" 1st, In the application to congress for a renewal of the charter; 

" 2d. In the extension of the loans of the bank in 1831 and 1832 ; 

" 3d. In the claim for damages on the French bill ; 

" 4th. In the circulation of documents vindicating the bank from the 
imputations he had cast upon it." 

In answering the first of these assertions, the report refers to the fact, 
that the president did not think it too early to agitate the question of 
rechartering the bank more than six years before its charter was to ex- 
pire ; and after having called the attention of congress to the subject in 
three successive annual messages, the bank, having asked for a renewal 
of its charter only four years before its expiration, was charged with the 
design, in this early application, to influence the election. 

In regard to the extension of loans, designed, as the president be- 
lieved, " to bring as large a portion of the people as possible under its 
power and influence," he was in error, both as to the amount and the 
motives. The sixteen months in which the increase of loans was alleged 
to have been made, was from January 1, 1831, to May 1, 1832. In the 
year 1831, the active foreign and interior trade required unusual facili- 
ties for its operations. The bank, having received the reimbui'sement of 
its loan to government, amounting to $8,674,681, and having called in 
its funds in Europe, and employed its credit there, to the amount of 
$4,000,000 — thus possessing additional means of loaning to the amount 
of nearly thirteen millions — had increased its loans seventeen millions, 
making in fact, a mere increase of its investments less than five millions, 
of which increase the new branch at Natchez, established within that 
period, alone contributed nearly three millions. 

The report says farther : " There are several circumstances which 
make this misstatement peculiarly improper. He reproaches the bank 
with this increase, although ' the bank was aware of the intention of the 
government to use the public deposit as fast as it accrued, in the payment 
of the public debt.' Now the fact is, that the public deposit was used, 
as we have just s^een, in paying off the public debt owned by the bank 
itself; so that instead of increasing its loans in such a way as to interfere 
with the payment of the public debt to others, this very public debt was 
paid to the bank itself, and furnished the very means of increasing the 
loans. "What makes it still worse is, that this very public debt was in 



598 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

fact paid to il..' Lank on the solicitation of the treasury itself, before the 
bank was btu.i.d to receive it." In relation to this, the secretary wrote 
to the bank, September 29th, 1831, saying: " The department fully ap- 
preciates the disposition which the board of directors have manifested by 
this arrangement, to cooperate in the accomplishment of its desire for 
the discharge of the public debt as early as the means of the treasury 
will permit " 

The points of comparison, too, were said to be fallacious. It was im- 
proper to compare May and January. The southern crop, with all its 
business, enlarged the spring operations of the bank. By comparing 
January with January, or May with May, the increase would be found 
comparatively small. 

In regard to the alleged inability of the bank to meet the demands of 
the government, and the necessity of obtaining a postponement, the 
directors said, the truth was, the government wished to make the post- 
ponement, but could not without the aid of the bank. Mr. M'Duffie and 
Mr. Cambreleng, members of the committee of investigation at Phila 
delphia, wrote letters to the secretary of the treasury, dissuading the 
government from making the payment. But the commissioners of the 
sinking fund having no authority to postpone the payment, as they 
would be obliged to pay the quarter's interest during the three months' 
dela}'', the president of the bank agreed to pay the interest, as the money 
would remain in the hands of the bank. The secretary had himself de- 
cided on the postponement, after he had seen the recommendation of 
M'Duffie and Cambreleng. 

" Much stress," they said, " was laid on the visit of the president of 
the bank to Washington while the committee of investigation were in 
Philadelphia. The truth was, the letter of the acting secretary was re- 
ceived so immediately before the period fixed for issuing the notice of 
payment, that, if any thing were to be done at all, it was to be done only 
by personal communication with the secretary, as there was no time for 
correspondence. The committee were aware of his going, and two of 
its members wrote letters to promote his object. Besides, his leaving 
the committee in full possession of the bank and all its papers, was the 
surest mark of his entire confidence that there was nothing in the con- 
cerns of the bank which they might not examine at leisure during his ab- 
sence, and was the best proof of his confidence in them as well as him- 
self The whole subject was before the committee of investigation of 
1832 ; and that committee acknowledged, as would be seen from their 
report, that this postponement was not the work of the bank." 

Another evidence adduced of the bank's opposition to him, was its 
olaim for damages from the non-payment of the bill drawn by our gov- 



BANK INVESTIGATION. 599 

ernment on that of France for about $900,000, being the first instalment 
of the French indemnify, and which the bank had purchased. The pur- 
chase money was left in the use of the bank, being simply added to the 
treasury deposit ; and yet the bank demanded fifteen per cent, as 
damages, when no damage beyond a trifling expense had been sustained. 
Such a fiscal agent of the government was not worthy of further trust. 
To this the directors reply, that the bank, in this operation, was not the 
fiscal agent of the government. The bank did not wish to purchase the 
bill at all, but proposed to collect it, paying the money only after it had 
been received by its agents in France. It was not true that the money 
was left in the use of the bank, and simply added to the treasury dcr 
posit. The sum was passed to the credit of the treasurer, and the pro- 
ceeds of this identical bill had been used by the government for paying 
its ordinary expenses. And when the bill was. protested in Paris, the 
agents of the bank there came forward and paid it : it had thus been 
paid twice over ; so that the disbursements by the bank on account of 
the bill had actually been $1,800,000. It had called on the government 
for the principal and damages ; and the government was bound on the 
principles of common honesty to pay the damages. It had been the uni- 
form practice of the government itself, when it had purchased bills from 
private citizens which had been returned protested, to enforce its claim 
for damages. 

All the allegations of the president against the bank were separately 
considered, and explained or denied. There had been no studied exclu- 
sion of government directors from committees. Nor had there been 
any " unusual remodeling " of committees. Nor was it true that "the 
president of the bank, by his single will, originated and executed many 
of the most important measures," &c. 

The expenditures during the years 1831 and 1832, under authority of 
certain resolutions, were not $80,000 ; they were exactly $48,278 90, 
as explained in the report. 

It was not true, as charged, " that publications had been prepared 
and circulated, containing the grossest invectives against the officers of 
the government ;" or that the president of the bank had unlimited dis- 
cretion to expend its funds," in the manner alleged, " to operate on 
elections and secure a renewal of its charter." The power actually 
given which had been exercised, and would continue to be exercised, was 
for the defense of the bank against the calumnies with which, for four 
years, the institution had been pursued. 

The report of the directors also reviews the report of the four "gov- 
ernment directors;" but we may not extend this reply. 

At the commencement of the next session of congress in December, 



GOO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

1833, secretary Taney made a long report to congress, giving his reasons 
for removing the deposits. His reasons were fou'aded mainly upon the 
statements and allegations of the president and government directors, as 
given in preceding pages. 



CHAPTER XLIX. 

CONTIXCATIOX OF THE BAXK AND DEPOSIT QrESTION. CLAT's RESOLU- 

TIOXS, AND THE PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. POST-OFFICE INVESTIGATION. 

The removal of ttie deposits took place the 1st of October, 1833 ; or, 
strictly speaking, the public moneys were no longer deposited in the bank 
of the United States ; those remaining therein, being only drawn out as 
they were wanted by the government. The loans of the bank were cur- 
tailed; and a severe money pressure soon pervaded the country. Busi- 
ness of most kinds was greatly depressed. Bills of state banks depre- 
ciated in value on account of the demand for money ; and banks were 
compelled to reduce their discounts. Public meetings were held in 
many places, and memorials to congress were prepared, praying for a 
return of the deposits to the bank of the United States. The memorial 
of the Philadelphia chamber of commerce, in enumerating the eflfeets of 
this measure, mentioned the decline in the price of public stocks from 
10 to 30 per cent.; the depression of the foreign and domestic ex- 
changes ; the fall in value of all the principal articles of domestic pro- 
duce; the impossibility of borrowing on mortgage as formerly, even at 
the highest legal rates of interest ; the ruinous discount on good mercan- 
tile paper, which varied from 12 to 18 per cent. ; the difficulty of obtaining 
cash advances on produce or merchandise ; the discharge of laborers, and 
the .suspension of mechanical and manufacturing business ; the decline 
in the value of real estate, &;c. 

While the friends of the bank regarded this state of things as a natural 
and necessary consequence of the removal of the deposits, its opponents 
considered the scarcity of money as only artificial, and attributed the 
pressure to the patiic produced by the bank and its friends for political 
purposes, or with a view to the renewal of its charter. Its discounts, 
they said, had been unnecessarily reduced, with a design to embarrass 
the state banks, which had been compelled to contract their issues. 

At no former stage of the bank controversy was there so intense as 
excitement on this question. This act of the president alineated many 



CONTINUATION OF THE BASK A>'D DEPOSIT QTTESTIOIT. 601 

of his former supporters. Meetings in many places were called, irrespec 
tire of party, and numerouslv attended by the friends of the administra- 
tion ; and resolutions unanimously adopted, condemning the removal of 
the deposits. Similar resolutions were also passed by the legislatures 
of several of the states. Those adopted by the YLrgiriia house of dele- 
gates, while they reiterated the opinion of the general assembly against 
the power of congress to establish a bank, pronounced the act of the 
president in exerting a control over the federal revenue, by causing its 
removal, on his own responsibility, from the bank, where it had been 
deposited under the authority of congress, " an unauthorized assumption 
and dangerous exercise of executive power ;" and instructed their sena- 
tors, and requested their representatives, in congress, to vindicate the 
constitution, and redress the evils thus occasioned. The legislatures of 
New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, on the other hand passed 
resolutions approving the course of the president. 

The reality of the scarcity of money was a fact too palpable to be 
disputed ; the great point in controversy was the cause. The aggreaate 
loans of the bank, on the 1st of January, 1833, were $61,695,613, when 
it had in deposit, $20,271,221. January 1st, 1S34, three months after 
the deposits were removed, the amount of loans was $-54,911,461, and 
of deposits, §10,965.375; showing the reduction of loans to have been 
$2,521,393 less than the reduction of deposits, during the year. 

One of the reasons alleged for the curtailment of its operations, was 
the apprehension of an attempt, on the part of the government, to em- 
barrass it. Mr. Kendall, the government agent, in a letter to a New 
York editor, a few days after the removal of the deposits, spoke of the 
effects of a sudden withdrawal of the public moneys, (then nearly ten 
millions,) from the bank, and added : '• Yes, sir, this boasting giant is 
but a reptile beneath the feet of the secretary of the treasury, which he 
can crush at will. It exists by his forbearance, and will, for the next 
forty days ; and great forbearance will it require to save it from de- 
struction." 

A few weeks after, the bank was surprised by the presentation of a 
number of large drafts, one of §100,000 at the branch in Baltimore, and 
two others, one of §100,000, and another of §500,000. at the bank in 
Philadelphia, all of which were paid. Three others, of §500,000 each, 
had been drawn upon the branch in New York These drafts were all 
in favor of the state banks in these places selected to receive the deposits. 
It had been the uniform practice of the treasury to transmit to the bank 
a weekly statement of drafts to be made upon it ; but these larcre sums 
were drawn for without the usual previous notice. The belief that the 
unexpected demand of these secret drafts was designed to embarrass the 



Q02 THE AMERJCAN STA-ESMAN. 

bank, was strengthened by certain articles in the officiiil paper, the 
Globe, in one of which, alluding to the " runs upon Mr. Biddle's bank," 
the editor said : "In more ways than one can the people make their 
power manifest ; and the trepidation displayed in the bank hive when 
the people, in a portion of Kentucky, by a spontaneous movement, began 
last year to cash its paper, has taught us how to make war with effect, 
whenever the conduct of the bank shall make it necessary or expedient." 

The 23d congress met qu the 3d of December, 1833 ; and some hopes 
were entertained that measures would be adopted to mitigate the dis- 
tress which pervaded the whole union, and affected almost every branch 
of business. During the winter and spring of 1834, many banks were 
compelled to stop paymeat. A large number of memorials were sent in 
to congress, praying for a restoration of the deposits to the bank of the 
United States. Numerous remonstrances also were presented against 
their return to that institution. The state of parties in congress at this 
time was such as to forbid the adoption of the measure prayed for, or of 
any other which was designed to afford relief. 

In the senate, Mr. Calhoun and his friends now acting with the oppo- 
sition, the administration party was in the minority. In the house, 
parties were subdivided into the Jackson party proper ; the Jackson 
Van Burcu party ; the Jackson anti-Van Buren party ; the anti- Jack- 
son party ; the nullifying anti- Jackson party; and the anti-masonic and 
anti- Jackson party. The three first named generally acting together, 
gave the administration a considerable majority, as appeared from the 
vote in the choice of speaker ; Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, being 
reelected by a vote of 142 to 66, and 9 blanks. 

In the senate, the practice which had existed in that body since 1828, 
of the appointment of committees by the president of the senate, was 
changed. Their appointment by the senate itself was reestablished. 

The removal of the deposits occupied a large share of the attention of 
congress at this session. It was brought to their consideration, both 
by the message of the president, and the report of the secretary of the 
treasury communicating his reasons for the removal. It was discussed 
on a great variety of motions, resolutions, calls for information, &c. 

In the house, on the motion to refer the secretary's report to the 
committee of ways and means, Mr. M'Dufiie moved to instruct the 
committee " to report a resolution, providing that the public revenue 
hereafter collected shall be deposited in the bank of the United States, 
in compliance with the public faith, pledged by the charter of the said 
bank." He supported his motion by a long speech, in which he re- 
viewed the conduct of the president and secretary in removing the 
deposits, alleging that the author of the act was the president, who had 



CONTINUATION OF THE BANK ANI> DEPOSIT QUESTION. 603 

no power over the deposits. He spoke of tlie distress produced by that 
measure, and he vindicated the bank from the numerous charges pre- 
ferred against it by the president and secretary. 

He was replied to by Mr. Polk, at great length, in defense of the 
president, and in reprehending the conduct of the bank. Mr. P. main- 
tained that the president had power over the heads of the departments. 
Being responsible to the people for the faithful execution of the laws, 
he must have the power to control the conduct of his assistants, not 
excepting the secretary of the treasury. It would not be pretended 
that congress could either appoint or remove that officer ; they could 
reach him only by the tedious process of impeachment. Mr P. 
referred to Mr. Madison and his cotemporaries to prove the respon- 
sibility of the president for the executive department, and the conse- 
quent power of removal. He also referred to the act of secretary 
Crawford, in 1817, who informed congress that be had made deposits 
in local banks, to aid them in resuming specie payments, and for other 
purposes. 

Mr. Polk considered the several allegations against the bank of mis- 
conduct, and endeavored to show that they were well founded ; that 
tkere was no necessity for the system of curtailment adopted by the 
bank. The secretary had stated in his report, and the bank returns 
corroborated the statement, that from August 1, to October 1, 1833, 
the bank had curtailed its discounts upwards of $4,000,000, while its 
means of discounting had been increased by an increase of deposits. 
He said the bank had so timed its reduction as to produce a pressure 
about the time of the meeting of congress, to induce the state banks to 
appeal to congress for a recharter of the bank of the United States. 
The mere transfer of the public money could not have produced the 
pressure ; the money was still in the country. Nor must the pressure 
be charged to the local banks ; their curtailments had become necessary 
to protect themselves from the eflfect of the excessive reductions by the 
bank of the United States. 

Mr. Polk, in noticing the reasons assigned for the large increase of 
loans by the bank from Jan. 1, 1831, to May 1, 1832, said, if it had 
become necessary, in consequence of the unusually large importations, 
for the bank to extend its business, to enable the merchants to sustain 
themselves and the credit of the country, it was equally incumbent on 
the bank to extend its accommodations to the importing merchants 
in 1833, when the importations exceeded those of 1831, by eight mil- 
lions. But it was apparent that the course of the bank was governed 
by political considerations. 

Against the statement of the president of the bank, that the post- 



604 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ponement of the payment of the three per cent, stocks was desired by 
the government instead of the bank, Mr. P. adduced the testimony 
of two of the directors, and of Mr. Dickens, chief clerk of the treasury, 
from whose statements it appears, that " the arrangement was made by 
the government, at the solicitation of th.e bank." And he quoted from 
the report of the committee of ways and means of the preceding session, 
their opinion "that in the arrangement made by the agent in England for 
the purchase of the three per cent, stock, and the detention of the cer- 
tificates, (which measure was afterwards disclaimed by the bank,) the 
institution exceeded its legitimate authority." 

The expenditures for printing were also examined, and evidence was 
presented to convict the president of the bank of misstatements, and of 
a corrupt expenditure of money. Mr. P. read extracts from some of 
the pamphlets paid for by the bank, which, he thought, did not appear 
to have been designed for the defense of the bank, as had been pre- 
tended. 

Mr. Binney, of Pennsylvania, replied to Mr. Polk ; but on two 
points only can we present his arguments. The first is, the establish- 
ment of the treasury department, which involved the question of the 
power of the president to control its afi'airs. The act of 1789 establish- 
ing the state department, then called " department of foreign afi'airs," 
was entitled, " An act for establishing an executive department," &c. ; 
and the secretary was to execute the duties enjoined on and intrusted to 
him by the president. So the departments of war and the navy were 
denominated executive departments, in the titles of the acts establishing 
them. But in the act for establishing . the treasury department, the 
denomination of " executive " was omitted, not by accident, but by 
design, as the word was in the title of the bill when reported by the 
committee. And what was more material, after enumerating the duties 
devolved upon him in relation to the finances, the act farther requires 
him to make report to either branch of the legislature : in all of which, 
the name of the president was not even mentioned. Hence, so far as 
the acts of the secretary related to the custody and security of the 
public moneys, his department was not a presidential department. 
" To have placed the custody of the public treasury within the execu- 
tive department, would have been a constitutional incongruity, to say 
nothing of the mischiefs of placing the power of the sword and the 
purse in the same hand. It would have marred the harmony and sim- 
plicity of the whole scheme of the constitution, by leaving to congress 
the duty of paying the debts and providing for the common defense and 
welfare, while the money collected for these objects was not under their 
' control, but in the hands of a different department." Mr. B. did not 



clay's resolut ons. 605 

adopt the conclusion of Mr. Polk, that because the president had the 
power of removal, he had the right to direct the secretary of the trea- 
sury in the discharge of his duties of every description. 

The other point in the speech of Mr. B. which it proposed to present, 
is his vindication of the bank in diminishing its discounts. It had been 
said that the ability of the bank to discount had been increased by the 
receipt of $4,000,000 of the public moneys in August and September. 
But the inference was erroneous. The bank not only had debtors, but 
was herself a debtor for private, as well as public deposits, and for her 
notes in circulation and balances due other banks ; and when she called 
on her debtors for a part of her demands, these very persons might be 
her creditors by deposit, or might borrow from such as were, and might 
call on the bank for what she owed them. And it appeared, that during 
these two mouths, the private deposits had actually fallen more than two 
millions. 

Said Mr. Binney : " Although the removal of the deposits did not 
take place until the 1st of October, the intention to remove them was 
fully known in July. The agency to negotiate with the state banks was 
announced in the Globe of the 25th of July ; and whatever the public 
might think, it was not for the bank to act in any other faith than that 
the purpose would be immediately and relentlessly executed. It was 
the clear duty of the board to prepare itself without a moment's delay. 
The position of the bank was every where known to the treasury depart- 
ment by the weekly statements. Her widely dispersed branches were to 
be strengthened wherever they required it. Her circulation was large, 
and she was in the practice of assisting it by an almost universal pay- 
ment at all points, without regard to the tenor of the notes. The house 
may judge of the extent of the accommodation which the bank was iu 
the practice of giving, by the thirty-nine millions of these notes paid 
out of place in the year 1832. They may know it farther, by the fact, 
that of these branch notes, $1,540,000 were paid at the bank in Philadel- 
phia, during the very months of August and September, 1833. This 
circulation was to be sustained and increased, to be still more facilitated, 
as it since has been, to keep the people and the bank from feeling the 
consequences of the measure. All this required that the bank should 
not sleep upon her post. The least dishonor suffered by that bank, 
would have produced universal disorder in the country." 

In the senate, on the 5th of December, Mr. Clay offered a resolution, 
requesting the president to inform the senate whether the paper read to 
the cabinet on the 18th of September, and alleged to have been pub- 
lished by his authority, was genuine or not ; and if genuine, to cause a 
copy of it to be laid before the senate. The resolution was adopted on 



^(^^^ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the 1 1 tb, by a vote of 23 to 1 8. The call was answered tbe next day 
by a message, questioning the constitutional right of the senate to 
require of him, a coordinate and independent branch of the government, 
an account of any communication made to the heads of the departments 
acting as a cabinet council, and adding as follows : " Feeling my respon- 
sibility to the American people, I am willing, upon all occasions, to ex- 
plain the grounds of my conduct ; and to give to either branch of the 
legislature any information in my possession that may be useful in the 
execution of the appropriate duties confided to them. Knowing the con- 
stitutional rights of the senate, I shall be the last man, under any cir- 
cumstances, to interfere with them. Knowing those of the executive, I 
shall, at all times, endeavor to maintain them, agreeably to the provisions 
">f the constitution, and the solemn oath I have taken to support and 
iefend it. I am constrained, therefore, by a proper sense of my own 
self-respect, and by the rights secured by the constitution to the execu- 
tive branch of the government, to decline a compliance ' with your 
request." 

On the 2Gth of December, Mr. Clay offered two resolutions : the first, 
declaring the dismissal of the late secretary because he would not, con- 
trary to his sense of duty, remove the public moneys, in conformity with 
tbe president's opinion, and the appointment of another to do the act, to 
be an exercise of a power over the treasury not granted to him by the 
constitution and laws, and dangerous to the liberties of the people. 
Second, that the reasons assigned by the secretary for the removal, were 
unsatisfactory and insufiicient. 

Mr. Clay supported these resolutions in a speech of two days. The 
theme, as will be readily imagined, was well adapted to elicit one of 
those " splendid efforts" for which that gentleman was celebrated, and 
which, how much soever they might come short of convincing, could not 
fail of charming his auditory. He was several times interrupted by ap- 
plause from the galleries which occasioned the interference of the vice- 
president. At the conclusion of the speech, it became necessary to 
order the galleries cleared to enforce the respect due to the senate. 

Mr. Benton replied to Mr. Clay on four successive days, in a speech 
characteristic of its distinguished author, a large portion of it consisting 
of documentary and historical extracts to fortify his positions. He con- 
cluded his speech with a motion to strike out the second resolution and 
insert, " That Nicholas Biddle, president of the bank of the United 

States, and , be summoned to appear at the bar of the senate, on 

the day of , then and there to be examined on oath, touch- 
ing the causes of the late large curtailment of debts dvie to the bank of 
the United States, and the manner of conducting the said curtailment • 



CLAY S RESOLUTIONS, AND THE PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. 607 

also to be tbeu and there examined touching the application of the moneys 
of the bank to electioneering and political objects." 

The debate was continued by Messrs. Southard, Calhoun, Ewing 
Preston, Sprague, Frelinghuyseu, and Tyler, in favor of Mr. Clay's reso- 
lutions ; and by Messrs. Shepley, Rives, Forsyth, Grundy, Wilkins, Hill, 
Tallmadge and Wright, in opposition. With few exceptions, the 
speeches were of unusual length. The discussion was protracted until 
the 2Sth of March, during a period of more than three months It was 
interspersed, however, with debates upon sundry other questions, some 
of which wore incidental to, or growing out of, the principal one, the 
removal of the deposits. Amo;ig these questions were numerous memo- 
rials from different parts of the union ; resolutions and proceedings of 
state legislatures ; the public distress, &c. 

On the 5 th of February, Mr. Webster, from the committee of finance, 
to whom had been referred the secretary's report on the removal of the 
deposits, and the second of the two resolutions of Mr. Clay, made a 
report which recommended the adoption of that resolution. At the 
close of the debate on this resolution, (March 28,) the question was taken 
upon its adoption, and decided in the affirmative : ayes, 28 ; noes, 18. 

Mr. Clay, then, at the instance of some of his friends, modified- his 
other resolution, so as to read as follows : " Resolved, That the presi- 
dent, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, 
has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the 
constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." The resolution was 
agreed to : ayes, 26 ; noes, 20. 

The passage of this resolution, which took place on the 28th of March, 
was followed, on the 15th of April, by a message from the president. 
protesting against this act of the senate. He pronounced the resolution, 
rii substance, an impeachment of the president, contrary to the form 
prescribed by the constitution. It abstained from averring in which of 
his proceedings the president had assumed unauthorized power. It was 
too general and indefinite to be easily repelled, yet sufficiently precise to 
bring into discredit the conduct and motives of the executive. And if 
this act of the senate, said the president, " shall be approved and sus- 
tained by an intelligent people, then will that great contest with arbi- 
trary power, which had established in statutes, in bills of rights, in sacred 
charters, and in constitutions of government, the right of every citizen 
to a notice before trial, to a hearing before conviction, and an impartial 
tribunal for deciding on the charge, have been waged in vain." 

He referred to the debate in the congress of 1789, on the establish- 
ment of the department of foreign affairs, in which the motion to strike 
but the clause declaring the secretary " to be removable by the presi 



608 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

den V was decided in the negative. This debate, he said, covered the 
whole ground, including the treasury department. He adverted to the 
fact, that four of the senators who had voted for the resolution, were 
from states whose legislatures had approved the course of the president 
and the secretary in relation to the bank, to wit : one from Maine, the 
two from New Jersey, and one from Ohio. 

After having stated the objects and reasons which impelled him to 
make this communication, he says: " I do hereby solemnly protest 
against the aforementioned proceedings of the senate, as unauthorized 
by the constitution ; contrary to its spirit and to several of its express 
provisions; subversive of that distribution of the powers of government 
which it has ordained and established; . . . and calculated, by their 
immediate and collateral effects, by their character and tendency, to 
concentrate in the hands of a body not directly amenable to the people, 
a degree of influence and power dangerous to their liberties, and fatal 
to the constitution of their choice." And after referring to his services 
in the two wars in which liberty was purchased and defended, to shield 
him from the imputation upon his private as well as public character, 
which was contained in this resolution of the senate which must stand 
forever on their journals, he concludes : " To the end that the resolu- 
tion of the senate may not be hereafter drawn into precedent, and to the 
end, also, that my motives and views in the executive proceeding 
denounced in that resolution may be known to my fellow-citizens, to the 
world, and to all posterity, I respectfully request that this message and 
protest may be entered at length on the journals of the senate." 

Immediately after the protest wss read, Mr. Poindexter rose, as he 
said, " to enter his solemn protest against the reception of this paper, 
and to submit a motion that it be not received;" which motion at the 
conclusion of his remarks, he accordingly made. This was the com 
mencemcnt of a highly interesting and animating, though somewhat 
acrimonious debate, which continued until the 7th of May. Those who 
farther participated in the debate were, Messrs. Sprague, Frclinghuysen, 
Southard, Leigh, Ewing, Bibb, Clay, Calhoun, Preston, and Webster, 
in favor of the motion of Mr. Poindexter ; and Messrs. Benton, King, 
Kane, Grundy, Wright, and Forsyth, in opposition. 

After the debate had proceeded a few days, an explanatory message 
was received from the president, designed to prevent a misconstruction 
of his former message into an "intention to deny the power and right 
of the legislative department to provide by law for the custody, safe- 
keeping, and disposition of the public money and property of the United 
States." Among the passages in thefii-st message liable to the construc- 
tion apprehended by the president, and to which senators had taken 



clay's resolutions, and the president's protest. 609 

exceptions, with the silent acquiescence on the part of the executive 
department, were the following : 

" The custody of the public property, under such regulations as may 
be prescribed by legislative authority, has always been considered an 
appropriate function of the executive department, in this and all other 
governments. * * * The superintendents and keepers of the whole 
are appointed by the president, and removable at his will. Public 
money is but a species of public property. * * * No oflBcer can 
be created by congress for the purpose of taking charge of it, whose 
appointment would not, by the constitution, at once devolve on the pre- 
sident, and who would not be responsible to him for the faithful perform- 
ance of his duties. * * * 'W'ere the congress to assume, with or 
without legislative act, the power of appointing officers, independently 
of the president, to take the charge and custody of the public property 
contained in the military and naval arsenals, magazines and store-houses, 
it is believed such an act would be regarded as a palpable usurpation of 
executive power, subversive of the form, as well as the fundamental prin- 
ciples of our government. But where is the difference of principle, 
whether public property be in the form of arms, munitions of war, and 
supplies, in gold and silver, or bank notes ?" 

Mr. Poindexter moved that this (the last) message also be not received, 
and gave notice of his intention to move certain resolutions modifying 
his resolution then under consideration. 

It was objected to receiving the protest, that it was extra-official, not 
coming within the rule prescribed in the constitution regulating inter- 
course between the president and congress; that it was vindictive and 
calumnious ; that it was an unauthorized executive interference with the 
legislative action of the senate; that it falsely assumed the declaration 
of the senate to be a criminal procedure against him; that no such paper 
had ever been presented to either house of congress ; that it was intended 
as a popular appeal to the people, and to make the senate itself the medi- 
um through which to promulgate his unfounded charges against that body. 
It was argued on the other hand, that the senate had condemned the 
president, and would not allow him to be heard in his defense ; that he 
had respectfully requested that his defense might be entered upon the 
journals of the body that had condemned him ; that the resolution of 
the senate was of an impeaching character and foreign to all leo'islation, 
as was evident from the fact that it was not a joint resolution requiring 
the action of the house of representatives. As a precedent for the pro- 
test, a case was cited which had occurred under Washington's adminis- 
tration. The senate had rejected a nomination ; Gen. Washington felt 
aggrieved, and, on a subsequent day, sent in the name of another indi 

39 



610 THE AMERICAN STAIESMAN. 

vidual, with a message complaining of the rejection of the former, and 
assigning his reasons for having nominated him. 

The debate on the resolutions of Mr. Poindexter closed on the 7th of 
May, when they were adopted: ayes, 27; noes, IG. The resolutions 
were agreed to in the following form : 

" Resolved, That the protest communicated to the senate on 17th 
instant, (April,) by the president of the United States, asserts powers 
as belonging to the president, which are inconsistent with the just authority 
of the two houses of congress, and inconsistent with the constitution of 
the United States. 

" Resolved, That while the senate is, and ever will be, ready to receive 
from the president all such messages and communications as the consti- 
tution and lawsj and the usual course of business authorize him to 
transmit to it; yet it can cot recognize any right in him to make a formal 
protest against votes and proceedings of the senate, declaring such votes 
and proceedings to be illegal and unconstitutional, and requesting the 
senate to enter such protest on its journals. 

" Resolved, That the aforesaid protest is a breach of the privileges of 
the senate, and that it be not entered on the journal. 

" Resolved, That the president of the United States has no right to 
send a protest to the senate against any of its proceedings." 

The material point in this controversy about the removal of the 
deposits, was the power claimed by and for the president over the custody 
of the public moneys; for, although the removal was made by order of 
the secretary, the "responsibility was assumed " by the president, who 
acknowledged the act as his own. The right of interference on his part 
was defended on the ground, first, that the treasury department was an 
executive department, designed, as were the other departments, to aid 
the executive in his constitutional duty, " to see that the laws arc faith- 
fully executed;" and secondly, that under the power of appointment 
and removal, possessed by the president, he could displace any executive 
officer who would not cooperate with him in the execution of the laws. 

It was contended, on the other hand, that the power here asserted, 
gave the president entire control of the treasury — a power never con- 
templated by the act establishing that department. That act was 
designed to make the secretary of the treasury, so far as his duties 
related to the public moneys, directly responsible to congress. Yet the 
president expressly declares : " Congress can not take out of the hands 
of the executive department the custody of the public property or 
money, without an assumption of executive power." Exercising the 
power of removal and appointment at pleasure, and if necessary, dispens- 
ing with the confirmations of the senate to his appointments, by appoint- 



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 61 

ing and reappointing in the recess, as in a certain instance he had done, 
he could evade any provision which congress might make for the custody 
and disposition of the public money, and the union of the purse and the 
sword in the hands of the executive would be complete. [Appendix, 
Note H.] 

Several reports and counter-reports, in relation to the bank, and the 
removal of the deposits, were made during the session. A project for 
the recharter of the bank for six years, was proposed by Mr. Webster. 
The question on granting leave to introduce his bill, was, on his own 
motion, laid on the table, to be called up at a future day, which, how- 
ever, was not done. 

Among the reports above mentioned, were those of the majority and 
minority of a committee of the house of representatives, appointed to 
investigate the affairs of the bank of the United States. The objects 
of this investigation were, to ascertain the cause of the commercial dis- 
tress complained of in the memorials presented to congress ; whether 
the bank had violated its charter ; what corruptions and abuses existed 
m its management ; whether it had used its corporate power or money 
to control the press or interfere in politics 5 and whether it had any 
agency in producing the existing pressure. The committee had power 
to visit the bank, to inspect its books, to send for persons and papers, 
and to summon and examine witnesses. 

The majority of the committee, in their report, complain of the treat- 
ment which they received from the bank directors. Although they had 
not been utterly denied the means of making the required investigation, 
their proceedings were so embarrassed, and their privileges so restricted, 
as to prevent the performance of the duties enjoined on them. They 
state, at the conclusion of their report : 

" Thus, your committee conclude, the just power and authority of 
the house of representatives have been set at naught, defied, and con 
.emned. 

" Thus the charter of the bank has been deliberately violated by re- 
fusals of directors to submit their books and papers to the inspection 
of this committee. 

" Thus have the just expectations of the house and their constituents 
been disappointed, and all means of obtaining the best and most accurate 
information concerning the operations of a controlling moneyed institu- 
tion been cut off and denied." 

The report concludes with a series of resolutions, asserting the right 
of congress, by the charter of the bank, to examine the books and pro- 
ceedings of the bank; declaring the president and directors, by withhold- 
ing books and papers called for by the committee, to have contemned the 



612 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

legitimate authority of ttc house ; and ordering the president and direc- 
tors of the bank to be arrested and brought to the bar of the house to 
answer for their contempt of its lawful authority. 

Mr. Everett, from the minority, reported, that the power of inquiring 
into the affairs of the bank extended only to the objects for which it was 
given, viz., to enable a committee to report "whether the provisions of 
the charter had been violated or not;" but did not embrace the right to 
search the bank for objects not made subjects of search by the charter. 
A general search for any purpose was unreasonable ; and the corporators 
of the bank, as well as other citizens, had the right " to be secure in 
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches 
and seizures." A room in the banking-house had been offered for the 
accommodation of the committee of investigation. The committee of the 
directors proposed to exhibit their books in person, and to withdraw 
whenever the congress committee wished to deliberate without the pre- 
sence of any other person ; the latter committee insisted on the right to 
exclude all other persons from the room. In the opinion of the minority, 
the right of the committee " to inspect the books" did not involve the 
right of withdrawing the books of the bank from the custody of the 
directors, and taking them into their own exclusive possession, detaining 
them as long as they pleased, and carrying them whithersoever they 
pleased. The committee of investigation having withdrawn from the 
room in the banking-house, the president and directors were required to 
submit certain of their books to the inspection of the committee at their 
room at the North American hotel. The committee of directors declined, 
for reasons which appeared in their resolutions. 

The directors required of the committee of investigation, when they 
should ask for books and papers, to specify the objects of their inquiry. 
This ground, assumed by the directors under the circumstances of the 
case, the minority regarded as a legal right. They expressed the opinion 
that the directors were disposed to afford any information for which the 
committee had a right to call, and concluded their report thus : " Firmly 
believing that they are innocent of the crimes and corruptions with which 
they have been charged, and that, if guilty, they ought not to be com- 
pelled to criminate themselves, the undersigned are clearly of opinion, 
that the directors of the bank have been guilty of no contempt of the 
authority of this house, in having respectfully declined to submit their 
books for inspection, except as required by the charter." 

These reports were made the 22d of May. On the 27th, the printing 
of 30,000 copies of both reports together was ordered. In the debate 
on printing, Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, said he wished the minor- 
ity repoi''/ extensively circulated for its sound and correct constitutional 



THE BANK AND THE PENSION LAW. 613 

views, although it did not go far enough ; he was therefore in fuvor of 
printing the largest number. But he particularly wished the largest 
proposed number of the report of the majority published, that the people 
might see the monstrous powers arrogated for that house. The citizens 
of Pennsylvania knew that their meritorious sons, Ingham and Duane, 
had been ignominiously dismissed from ofl&ce without cause; but they 
might not know that it was contemplated to drag fourteen of her distin- 
guished citizens as criminals before that house. 

Mr. Bynum, of North Carolina, replied to Mr. Pinckney. He thought 
his object in denouncing, in advance, the report of the majority, was to 
prejudge it, and to forestall public opinion. 

On the 29th of May, Mr. J. Q. Adams obtained the unanimous con- 
sent of the house to submit as a substitute for the resolutions of the 
majority, three resolutions, declaring, 1st. That the committee of investi- 
gation be discharged ; 2dly, That no contempt of the lawful authority 
of the house had been offered by the president and directors of the bank ; 
and 3dly, That the order to arraign them as proposed, would be an 
unconstitutional, arbitrary, and oppressive abuse of power. These reso- 
lutions, also, were ordered printed. 

During this session of congress, occurred another collision between 
the government and the bank, in which the interposition of congress was 
invoked. A message from the president, under date of February 4, 1834, 
was sent to both houses, informing them of the refusal, by the bank, to 
deliver to the order of the executive, certain books, funds, &c., relating 
to the payment of certain pensioners, under the act of June 7, 1832. 
He charged upon the bank " the claim to usurp the function of the judi- 
cial power, and to prescribe to the executive department the manner in 
which it shall execute the trust confided to it by law." The occasion 
of this controversy was the difference of construction, by the parties, of 
the law above mentioned. The bank insisted that it was the lawfully 
constituted agent for the payment of pensions, and that it was bound to 
a performance of the duty, and had no right to make the transfer directed 
by the war department. Mr. Biddle, in a letter to the secretary of war, 
(Mr. Cass,) refers to the several acts of congress devolving upon the bank 
and its branches the business of paying pensions. 

The attorney-general, to whom the president had referred the question, 
considered the act of 1832, as not properly a pension law. It provided 
for the payment of certain officers and other persons for services in the 
war of the revolution, under the direction of the secretary of the treasury, 
and at such places and times as he may direct. The duties devolved 
upon this officer by this act, were soon after transferred to the secretary 
of war. The pension office being a bureau of the war department, the 



614 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

secretary of war had assigned to tLe pension office, of which the bank 
was the agent, the business of receivings examining, and deciding on 
applications for the benefit of this act, not because the law was, strictly 
speaking, a ^ewsio;i law, hvit because the whole subject bore so much 
analogy to the pension system, as to make it proper to commit its gen- 
eral management to the pension office. But having thought proper to 
discontinue the employment of the bank and its branches so far as related 
to payments under the act of 1832, the order to this effect had been 
accordingly issued by virtue of the authority of that law. 

The president of the bank considered the error of the government to 
lie in the construction of the law as to the places of payment. The word 
" places" must be used in its ordinary and common sense meaning. 
Philadelphia was a place ; New York was a place ; and in authorizing 
the secretary to designate a place, it must have been intended that he 
should point out the general locality of the city or town, and not the 
banking-house, where payment was to be made ; that he should arrange 
the pensioners according to localities, by paying them at the agencies 
most convenient to their respective residences. Such arrangements had 
often been authorized before. But the instructions did not direct the 
place where, but the 2^^^'S07i by ichom, payment should be made in that 
place. No authority was given to the secretary to change the agent. 

In the senate, the message of the president was referred to the com- 
mittee on the judiciary, who made a report in accordance with the views 
of the bank, concluding with a resolution, " That the department of 
war is not warranted in appointing pension agents in any state or terri- 
tory where the bank of the United States or one of its branches has been 
established." 

In the house, the committee of ways and means, to whom the message 
was referred, reported in coincidence with the views of the president and 
secretary. They also recommended a repeal of the several provisions 
constituting the bank and its branches pension agents under the invalid 
acts, and the acts of 1818 and 1820, and reported a bill accordingly. 

Early in the session, (December 17, 1833,) the president nominated 
to the senate, as directors of the bank of the United States, on the part 
of the government, for the year 1834, James A. Bayard, of Delaware, in 
the place of Saul Alley, and Peter Wager, Henry D. Gilpin, and John 
T. Sullivan, of Philadelphia, and Hugh McElderry, of Baltimore, to the 
same offices. The last four named gentlemen were the government 
directors who made the report to which allusion has been made, and 
which animadverted upon the conduct of the board of directors. The 
nomination of Mr. Bayard was confirmed on the 21st of January, 1834. 
The question on the nomination of the others was several times post- 



POST-OFFICE INVESTIGATION. 615 

poned, until the 27tla of February, when it waa decided in the negative • 
the votes averaging about 20 to 25. 

On the 1 1th of March, a message was sent to the senate, renominating 
the same gentlemen. The president disclaimed the right to call in ques- 
tion the reasons of the senate for rejectiDg any nomination. He thinks 
proper, however, to communicate his views of the consequences of the 
act of the senate, if it should not be reconsidered. He then defends 
the conduct of these directors, for which he conceives that they had been 
rejected. If, for performing a duty lawfully required of them by the 
executive, they were to be punished by rejection, it would be useless and 
cruel to place men of character and honor in that situation. Hence, if 
the nomination of these men was not confirmed, the bank would hereafter 
be without government directors, and the people must be deprived of 
their chief means of protection against its abuses. Mr. Bayard having 
refused to accept his appointment, there was now no government director. 
The message was referred to the committee on finance. A report 
from the committee, by Mr. Tyler, was made the 1st of May. The re- 
port said that the president disclaimed all right to inquire into the rea- 
sons of the senate ; yet he undertook to infer from circumstances what 
these reasons must have been, and argued at large against their validity. 
If he could not inquire into them, he could not with propriety assume 
them, and make them the subject of comment. The committee regretted 
the intimation that the names of other persons might not be sent to the 
senate. They could not see why no others should be nominated in this 
case as well as in other cases of rejection. If the offices should remain 
unfilled, the fault would not be the fault of the senate. 

The message renominating Messrs. Wager, Gilpin, Sullivan, and 
McElderry was considered, and the question on their appointment was 
determined in the negative : ayes, 1 1 ; noes, 30. 

No farther nominations were made during the session. 
An investigation was made at this session into the afi"airs of the post- 
office department. A report was presented by Mr. Ewing, from the post- 
office committee, representing the department in a state of embarrass- 
ment, its debt being upwards of $800,000 beyond its resources, and 
mainly attributable to mal -administration and favoritism in making con- 
tracts and extra allowances, of which a number of cases are particular- 
ized. Its reports, statements and estimates were declared to be so erro- 
neous and defective, as to be unreliable. The report ends with resolu- 
lutious declaring not only existing errors and abuses, but defects in the 
system itself, which needed improvement. 

Mr. Grundy, chairman of the committee, in behalf of the minority, 
made a counter report, which accounted for the insolvency of the depart- 



f)16 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ment, by showing that the deficiency of the yearly income had com- 
menced before the present incumbent came into office, being about 
$100,000 on his taking possession of the department. This report 
stated that the debt of the department beyond its available means, was 
only about $300,000 ; that this was owing to an illusory system which 
had ever prevailed of accounting for the expenses of the department ; 
and that the postmaster-general, as soon as the cause was disclosed, had 
applied the corrective. It showed that sundry improvements had been 
introduced into the department by the present postmaster-general ; and 
it assumed to correct several statements contained in the report of the 
majority. It also recommended a more perfect organization of the de- 
partment. 

A few days before the close of the session,- the first resolution reported 
by Mr. Ewing, declaring that large sums of money had been borrowed 
at banks by the postmaster-general to make up deficiencies in the means 
of the department, without authority of law ; and that, as congress alone 
has power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, all such 
contracts of loans by the postmaster-general were illegal and void, was 
unanimously adopted : ayes, 41. 

The remaining resolutions were then laid on the table ; and the com- 
mittee on the post-office and post-roads was authorized to continue the 
investigations into the affairs of the department during the recess : ayes, 
33 ; noes, 10. 

A committee for the same purpose was appointed by the house. Very 
full and voluminous reports were made at the next session — the minority 
of each cominittee also reporting. Although these reports were on 
many points discordant, they all concurred in the general conclusion, 
that a reform in the management of the department was imperiously de- 
manded. The committee of the house, a majority of whom were friendly 
to the administration, admitted, that " the finances of the department 
had been managed without frugality, system, intelligence, or adequate 
public utility ;" that *' the practice of granting extra allowances had 
run into wild excesses;" &c. They say in their concluding paragraph : 
" The committee, in surveying the wide field of their labors, regret only 
that their reward had not been discoveries of a more pleasing character. 
They had hoped that their researches would have brought to light the 
fruits of an enlightened and well directed labor, instead of proofs of 
error and neglect. But they have finished the task assigned them with 
an honest purpose, and to the best of their ability." 

A bill was reported by the senate committee for reforming the admin- 
istration of the post-office, which passed that body unanimously, and 
soon after became a law. 



CABINET CHANGES MISSION TO ENGLAND. fit? 



CHAPTER L. 

CABINET CHANGES. MISSION TO ENGLAND. BENTON's EXPUNGING RESO- 
LUTION. FRENCH INDEMNITY. POWER. OF REMOVAL. BRANCH MINTS. 

In June, 1834, Mr. M'Lane resigned the office of secretary of state, 
and John Forsj^th, senator in congress from Georgia, was appointed in 
his place. Levi Woodbury, secretary of the navy, was appointed secre- 
tary of the treasury, in the place of Mr. Taney, whose appointment 
during the recess, the senate refused to confirm. Mahlon Dickerson, 
late senator in congress from New Jersey, was appointed secretary of 
the navy. Mr. Butler's previous appointment as attorney-general was 
confirmed. 

Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, and speaker of the house, was nomi- 
nated as minister to Great Britain, and rejected by the senate. No 
nomination to this office had been made since the rejection of Mr. Van 
Buren, in 1832; and the mission remained vacant until March, 1836, 
when' Mr. Stevenson was again nominated, and the nomination confirmed. 
During this vacancy, the afi"airs of the United States with the govern- 
ment of Great Britain, were in the charge of Aaron Vail, who had been 
secretary of legation under Mr. Van Buren. 

The long delay in making a nomination to fill this vacancy, and the 
rejection of Mr. Stevenson, were the subject of much speculation and 
remark. It was said that the president had, at the time of Mr. Van 
Buren's rejection, avowed the intention of sending no successor. The 
alleged cause of Mr. Stevenson's rejection was the fact that he had for a 
year had the assurance of the mission. The facts in this case were dis- 
closed by letters of Mr. Livingston, secretary of state, Mr. Ritchie, 
editor of the Richmond Enquirer, and Wm. B. Lewis. The letter of 
Mr. Livingston to Mr. Stevenson was communicated by the president on 
the call of the senate. Mr. Livingston's letter to Mr. Stevenson, of 
March, 1833, requested him " to hold himself in readiness to embark 
in the course of the summer." And he held this assurance when ho 
suffered himself to be reelected to congress, and to the office of speaker ; 
and when the bill passed the house, (himself in the chair,) making the 
appropriation for an outfit of $9,000, with an annual salary of the same 
amount. It was presumed, that, if this fact had been known to his con- 
stituents, they would not have elected him. 

Some senators found an additional objection in the unprecedented 



618 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

extent to which the practice had been carried of appointing members of 
congress to office. Thirty-eight — thirteen senators and twenty-five 
representatives, inciuding Mr. Stevenson — holding, or having within a 
year held, these offices, hud received appointments during the first five 
years of the administration ; a number nearly equal, it was said, to that 
of similar appoiutuieuts under all preceding administrations : a practice 
the President himself had condemned as tending to corruption. [See 
letter to Tennessee legislature.] 

In explanation of this afi'air, the president, in his message communi- 
cating the correspondence, stated, that the appointment had been made 
upon the contingency of the consent of Great Britain to open a negotia- 
tion in London, which was afterward commenced at Washington. What 
the negotiation was, or whether there was any motive for the appoint- 
ment in 1S34 which did not exist in 1833, the president did not say. 
In farther explanation of the transaction, the other letters above men- 
tioned were, at the instance of Mr. Stevenson, presented to the senate. 
The letter of Mr. Ptitchie to Mr. Stevenson was written August 15, 
1834, after the message of the president with Mr. Livingston's letter 
had been communicated to the senate. Mr. R. says : 

*' I well recollect the circumstances to which you refer. When you 
showed mo the note of 2»Ir. Livingston, we had a great deal of conversa- 
tion about it. Neither of us regarded the notice in the light of an ap- 
pointment. In fact, it presented itself as a mere contingency ; and we 
considered it extremely doubtful whether or when you would be appoint- 
ed, or, if at all ; for if the British declined a negotiation, it seemed to 
be the president's intention to make no nomination at all, not even dur- 
ing the ensuing session of congress. But this idea struck me, that he 
might appoint you in case the contingency happened during the recess, 
and not send you, but Mr. Livingston to France. I suggested that these 
appointments ought not, and could not be made according to the spirit 
of the constitution, during the recess of the senate. You promptly and 
cordially concurred in this view of the subject; and I then determined 
to write to a friend in Washington, for the purpose of laying this view 
before the president himself. You approved of my doing so ; and, in 
fact, we agreed perfectly in the course that ought to be taken. We 
determined to take no notice of Mr. Livingston's letter, to act yourself 
as if no such letter had been written ; that it would be best not to ofi'er 
to accept the appointment if made in the summer, and to await the 
action of the senate, &c., &c." 

The " friend in Washington" to whom Mr. Ritchie wrote, was Wil- 
liam B. Lewis, who, on the 21st of June, 1834, communicated to Mr. 
Stevenson extracts of two letters received from Mr. Ftitchic m 1833, in 



REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF FINANCE. 619 

which the latter says : " One of the highest powers which attaches to 
the executive, is that of appointment ; over its exercise is accordingly 
thrown, and wisely thrown, the check of concurrence by the senate. 
Now, sir, doubts do exist, whether the vacancy in the missions to Lon- 
don and Paris did not originally occur during the recess of the senate. 
Secondly^ whether the vacancy does not still exist ; and thirdly, whether 
it ought now to be filled without a consultation with the senate." 

These explanations, however, did not satisfy the opposition. They 
saw a secret design in holding back the appointment. If he wished to 
bring the president back to a constitutional practice of appointment, 
why did he not object at the time to receiving the appointment during 
the recess ? If he did not desire it to be kept back for some special 
purpose, why did he employ the agency of Mr. Ritchie, through which 
the promise of the office had been kept alive ? And why was the nomi- 
nation withheld until near the close of the session ? It was insinuated 
that the president had a certain design to accomplish, which required 
the services of Mr. Stevenson in congress during another session ; of 
which a sufficient explanation was furnished by the cast given to certain 
important committees, and the dissatisfaction excited in the discharge 
of the ordinary duties of presiding officer of the house. He had resign- 
ed the speaker's chair the last of May. The customary resolution of 
thanks was not moved until near the close of the session, when it re- 
ceived unusual opposition. It was adopted by 97 ayes to 49 noes. 

On the resignation of Mr. Stevenson, John Bell, of Tennessee, was 
chosen speaker, on the tenth ballot. He received 114 votes; James 
K. Polk, 78; scattering and blanks, 26. Mr. Bell was one of those 
members who, though friendly to the administration, was opposed to the 
claims of Mr. Van Buren for the presidency ; and was elected by a 
union of that branch of the party with the opposition. 

The committee on finance, in the senate, who had been instructed, at 
the preceding session, to investigate the affairs and conduct of the bank 
of the United States during the recess, made a very voluminous report 
on the subject, on the 18th of December, 1834. Mr. "Webster, the chair- 
man, not having acted with the committee, the report was drawn up by 
Mr. Tyler. The subjects upon which they reported, were, the alleged 
violation of the charter of the bank; the safety of the public deposits; 
the management of the bank ; the French bill ; intermeddling with 
politics; rewarding editors; &c., &c. The report, as was generally 
expected, was in the main favorable to the bank. It conveys, however, 
some censure for having expended too much in the printing and distribu- 
tion of speeches and pamphlets. "While the committee approved the 
regulation authorizing the bank to pay for publications " necessary for a 



620 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

true exposition of its condition, or to defend itself against unjust or in- 
jurious accusations," they gave it as their decided opinion, that this 
expense for printing had for the last few years been unnecessarily in- 
creased. The information would have reached the people through the 
ordinary channels of communication ; and the attitude of the bank 
would have lost nothing in the public estimation by the practice of more 
reserve. 

The committee also disapproved the practice which had grown up 
under the resolution of March 11, 1831, which authorized the president 
of the bank, by the circulation of documents and papers, " to communi- 
cate to the people information in regard to the nature and operations of 
the bank." Expenditures had been made under it, resting on the orders 
of the president, without vouchers or defined purpose. 

The necessity or importance of this investigation was much doubted. 
As a measure of party policy, its expediency was perhaps still more 
questionable. Whether justly or unjustly, the bank was growing into 
disfavor ; and occasion was taken by its opponents to impute to the 
authors of this investigation the design of attempting to retrieve the 
popularity of the institution. Hence the committee became known by 
the name of the " white-washing committee." 

A bill to regulate the deposits in the state banks, had passed the 
bouse at the session of 1833-34, a few days before its close. It was 
taken up in the senate on the last day of the session, and laid on the 
table. At an early day of the next session, a similar bill was reported 
in the house by Mr. Polk, which was discussed until the 13th of Feb- 
ruary; after which no farther action appears from the journal to have 
been taken upon it. 

Tn the senate, Mr. Calhoun, from a select committee on executive 
patronage, on the 9th of February, also reported, among other things, 
a bill to regulate the deposits of the public monej', which passed the 
senate, 28 to 12. All the senators who voted in the negative, except 
two or three, were political friends of the president. Their opposition to 
the bill, however, was chiefly owing, it is believed, not to making de- 
posits in the banks, but to the terms and conditions upon which they 
were to be made. Depositing in these banks had from the beginning 
been recommended by the president as his favorite measure ; from which 
fact, the selected banks came to be called the " pet banks." 

In the discussion of the bill in the house, was suggested the plan of 
what was afterwards called the " sub-treasur}-." It was similar to the 
present established system. It was moved by Mr. Gordon, of Virginia, 
as an amendment, and proposed the appointment of agents of the trea- 
surer of the United States, to keep and disburse the revenue, giving- 



BENTON S EXPUNGING RESOLUTION. 621 

bonds for the faithful execution of their office. It proposed also, that 
the whole revenue from customs, lands, and other sources, should be paid 
in current coin of the United States. It was treated as a whig or opposi- 
tion measure, from its having received a majority of its votes from mem- 
bers of that party, and disaffected democrats — most of them, it is be- 
lieved, the latter. Mr. Gordon had been a Jackson man, and probably 
was still a supporter of the measures of the administration generally. 
He was opposed to the United States bank as unconstitutional and dan- 
gerous, and had carried his opposition to the extreme. But disapprov- 
ing of the president's interference with the public revenues, he had, since 
the removal of the deposits, generally voted on this and kindred ques- 
tions with the opposition. Opposed to the use of banks altogether, he 
had at the preceding session offered a similar amendment to the bill then 
jjending. The amendment now offered was rejected : ayes, 33, noes, 161. 

It is worthy of note, that the state bank system of deposit, which was 
adopted by the administration party with almost entire unanimity, was, 
within two or three years thereafter, abandoned in favor of the sub- 
treasury scheme, which it had so generally and unqualifiedly condemned ; 
and that the whigs, preferring the state banks to the sub-treasury as a 
place of deposit, became the advocates of the former system rejected by 
their opponents. 

At the time of the adoption, by the senate, March 28, 1834, of the 
resolution of Mr. Clay, pronouncing the president's proceedings in 
relation to the deposits to be in derogation of the constitution and laws, 
Mr. Benton gave notice of his intention to move, from time to time, 
that the resolution be expunged from the journal, until it should be 
done, or until he should cease to be a member of that body. In pur- 
suance of that intention, on the 18th of February, 1835, he moved a 
resolution, ordering the obnoxious resolution to be expunged, because 
it was " illegal and unjust, of evil example, indefinite and vague, ex- 
pressing a criminal charge without specification; and was irregularly 
and unconstitutionally adopted by the senate in subversion of the rights 
of defense which belong to an accused and impeachable officer ; and at a 
time and under circumstances to endanger the political rights, and to 
injure the pecuniary interests of the people of the United States." 

Mr. Poindexter objected to the reception of the resolution, on the 
ground that it was out of order. The constitution made it the duty of 
each house to keep a journal of their proceedings, and the senate had 
no right to expunge any of those proceedings from its journal. 

Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said, that to pronounce the alteration 
of the journal unconstitutional, was anticipating a conclusion that 
could be reached only through an investigation; yet the senator from 



022 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mississippi would arrest the inquiry in its incipient stage. Besides 
several states — four or five, he believed — had, by their legislatures, 
sent instructions to their senators to vote for expunging the resolution. 
And would the senate refuse to entertain a proposition in defiance of the 
action of so many sovereign states ? 

Mr. Leigh, though opposed to the resolution, was in favor of its 
reception ; and at his request, Mr. Poindexter withdrew his objection. 

Mr. Benton went into an exposi^^'on of the several reasons enumer- 
ated in his resolution, for the exp. "on of the record. The conduct 
of the bank which gave occasion i. e removal of the deposits, the 
removal of Mr. Duane, and kindred . 'ics, were made the subject of 
remark, and were severally treated in the same manner as they had been 
on former occasions. 

The speech of Mr. Southard in reply, or that part of it which related 
directly to the main subject under consideration, was also chiefly a 
reproduction of the arguments before used in condemnation of the 
course of the president and the defense of the senate. The greater 
part of his speech is a discussion of the incidental question of the right 
of instruction. This subject was argued with much ability, and the 
more fully, perhaps, from his representing a state whose senators were 
under instructions. [Appendix, Note I.] 

On the last day of the session, March 3, Mi. White, of Tennessee, 
moved to amend the resolution, by striking out the word " expunge," 
and inserting " rescind, reverse, and to make null and void." He said 
he could not vote to obliterate and deface the journal; and he wished 
the resolution so fi'amed as to express his feelings on the subject. 

Mr. Benton considered the word "expunge" strictly parliamentary. 
He did not wish to obliterate the journal, but to use words which would 
express that the resolution ought never to have been put there. The 
word " rescind" was not strong enough; it admitted the lawfulness of 
the act at the time it was done. Every senator might vote to rescind 
the resolution without altering hie opinion. 

Mr. White, at the suggestion of Mr. M'Kean, of Pennsylvania, 
modified his amendment by adopting the words " repeal and reverse /" 
and then proceeded to give additional reasons in favor of his amend- 
ment. After a discussion of considerable length, Mr. King, of Ala- 
bama, moved to amend that part of the resolution proposed to be 
stricken out, by first striking out the words, " ordered to be expunged 
from the journals," which motion was carried : ayes, 39 ; noes, 7. 

Mr. Webster then congratulated the senate on the failure of the 
attempt to deface its journal, and moved that the resolution be laid 
upon the table, which was done without farther debate : ayes, 27 j 
noes. 20 



FRENCH INDEMNITY. 623 

A claim for indemnity for spoliations of the property of American 
citizens by France prior to the year 1800, was presented at the session 
of 1834-35. The pretension of the claimants was, that, by the treaty 
of 1800, the United States, in order to obtain from France a discharge 
from liabilities incurred by a non-fulfillment of the stipulations of the 
treaties of 1778, had surrendered to the French government these 
claims of our citizens, and had thereby become justly liable for their 
payment. The bill proposed to pay to the claimants $5,000,000. 

The question was ably argued in the senate, on both sides. Mr. 
Webster, the author of the bill, was its leading advocate; and Mr. 
Wright its most prominent opponent. Their speeches were not only 
powerful in argument, but highly valuable for the historical facts which 
they contained in respect to the relations between the two countries. 
The speech of Mr. Wright, especially, gives a minute and full history 
of our affairs with France. 

Mr. Tyler, in stating the general ground of opposition to the bill, 
said, our government had not neglected any efforts to obtain recompense 
for the claimants. Minister after minister had been sent to France to 
oegotiate on this point. The object had been pursued up to the year 
1800, with the utmost assiduity; and the government had thus fulfilled 
its duties to its citizens. These claims had been pressed on the ground 
that the United States had, by the treaty of 1800, made provision for 
the payment, and, for a valid consideration, had discharged France from 
liability, and assumed these claims. And what was that consideration ? 
It was one upon which no payment could be made, on which no payment 
could rest. By the treaty of 1778, there were mutual stipulations. 
One was that France should guaranty the independence of the United 
States, while the United States should guaranty to France the tv/o West 
India Islands, Guadaloupe and Martinique. 

In the war between Great Britain and France, our obligation to fulfill 
the treaty remained in full force. Was it expected that we should take 
a part in that war ? He asked if there was not a great anxiety on the 
part of the United States to get rid of that guaranty. And now, be- 
cause, by a subsequent treaty, we had got rid of the guaranty, had citi- 
zens a right to demand compensation for losses ? Such a conclusion was 
in opposition to every authority which could be brought forward. 

The bill was supported by Messrs. Webster, Preston, Shepley, Rob- 
bins, and Prentiss; and opposed by Messrs. Tyler, Benton, Hill, Wright, 
King, of Georgia, and Bibb. It passed the senate on the 28th of Janu- 
ary, 25 to 21. In the house, the committee to whom the bill was refer- 
red, reported that there was not time at this session to investigate the 
subject, and were discharged. 



624 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

xVt the session of 1834-35, a committee was appointed in the senate 
to consider the expediency of reducing the executive patronage, of which 
Mr. Calhoun was chairman. The other members of the committee were, 
Messrs. Webster, Southard, King, of Georgia, Bibb and Benton. Messrs. 
Benton and King were friends of the administration; Mr. Bibb had for 
some time acted with the opposition. 

On the 9th of February, a long report was made, which occupied 
about an hour and a half in the reading. It concluded with a joint reso- 
lution, proposing to amend the constitution so as to provide for a distri- 
bution of the surplus revenues among the states and territories. A bill 
was reported to regulate the deposits of the public moneys ; and another 
to repeal certain sections of an act of 1820, limiting the term of certain 
officers. The senate ordered 10,000 copies of the report printed, and 
the usual number of the report of Mr. Benton and others in 1826. 

The report showed the annual public expenditures to have been in 
1825, $11,490,460, and in 1833, to have risen to $22,713,755, not 
including payments on account of the public debt. Tbis increase of 
expenditure was attributed to several causes ; among which was the 
large increase of officers, agents, contractors, &c., who were paid from 
the treasury. Their number was stated at upwards of 60,000, of whom 
31,017 were connected with the post-office. The practice of removing 
faithful and well qualified persons from office to make place for those 
who were of the party in power — a practice of recent date — was advert- 
ed to and reprehended. Such cases, though they had occurred under 
former administrations, had been comparatively rare. 

Increased power had also been acquired by the executive in the con- 
trol recently assumed over the public funds ; and facts were stated to 
show the extent of patronage exercised through this power of controlling 
the deposits. The average amount of deposits was about $10,000,000, 
and the estimated value of their use to the banks was about four per 
cent.; making $400,000 per annum. This immense gain to these influ- 
ential monopolies depended upon the will and pleasure of the executive, 
and gave him a control over them. Anticipating, during the existence of 
the compromise tariff acts, an annual surplus of revenue of $9,000,000, 
and protesting against its accumulating in the banks in which it was de- 
posited, the committee proposed an annual distribution of the surplus, 
until the year 1 842, when the compromise act would expire. 

The report was warmly opposed by Mr. Benton. He concurred with 
the general purport and object of the report, as to the augmentation of 
money expended, and of men employed and fed by the government, and 
the necessity of retrenchment. But the objects of expenditure which 
were of questionable propriety, had their origin in preceding admiuistra- 



POWER OF REMOVAL. 625 

tioDJ, and some of them in the administration of Mr. Monroe, when the 
author of the report was a member of it ; others under Mr. Adams ; 
while those of real expediency owed their origin to the present adminis- 
tration ; among which were the removal of the Indians, and the great 
acquisition of lands, by the extinction of the Indian title. He pro- 
nounced the report fallacious and delusive. Those great additional pay- 
ments in 1833, were for unusual, extraordinary objects, occurring but 
once. And he mentioned the Black Hawk war in 1832, the expenses of 
which were principally paid in 1833 ; the large sum paid under the pen- 
sion act of 1832, the provisions of which extended back to 1831 ; the 
sum thus accumulated, amounting to three and a half millions. These, 
with certain other special expenditures which he mentioned, amounted to 
$7,000,000. 

Mr. B. noticed the several points of the report in detail. He ridiculed 
the idea of altering the constitution for the period of eight years to get 
rid of surplus revenue. Nine millions to be distributed annually for eight 
years ! A most dazzling, seductive and fascinating scheme ! He had 
seen a gentleman who looked upon it as establishing a new era in our 
public affairs, a new test for the formation of parties, operating the po- 
litical salvation and elevation of all who supported it, and the immedi- 
ate and utter political damnation of all who opposed it. Mr. B. denied 
that there would be so large a surplus. And it might be reduced with- 
out disturbing the compromise act. The price of public lands might be 
reduced. But whether this was done or not, the revenue from that 
source would be diminished : there had been unusual quantities of land 
sold for three or four years ; but these large sales would not continue. 
There were national objects upon which the surplus revenues might be 
expended : the fortifying of our coasts, both on the Atlantic and on the 
lakes ; the increase of the navy, &c. 

Mr. Leigh said the credit or discredit of originating the proposition 
to divide the surplus revenue among the states, did not belong to the 
committee, but to the president himself, who had recommended it in his 
annual messages of 1829 and 1830 ; and he read extracts from the mes- 
sage of 1830, containing such recommendation. 

The principal debate on executive patronage took place in discussing 
the bill reported by the committee, proposing to repeal the first and 
second sections of the act of 1820, and to require the president every 
four years to lay before congress the names of all defaulting offi- 
cers and agents ; and, in cases of nomination to fill vacancies caused by 
removal from office, to assign the reasons for removal. The provisions 
of the bill were the same as those of the bill reported by Mr. Benton in 
1826. The principal participators in the debate were Messrs. Calhoun, 

40 



626 THE AMERICAN STATESMAK 

Ewing, Southard, "Webster, White, Clayton, Preston, and Clay, in favoff 
of the bill ; and Messrs. Benton, Shepley, Wright, Buchanan, Grundj 
and Hill, in opposition. Mr. Benton, though opposed to certain parta 
of the report, as well as certain points discussed in the debate, finally 
voted for the bill. The vote on its passage was, 31 ayes to 16 noes. 

The provisions in the act of 1820 proposed to be repealed, limited the 
term of certain officers, (receiving and disbursing officers,) to four years. 
It was proposed by this bill, that, if their accounts were regularly settled, 
and the money faithfully collected and disbursed, they were to remain in 
office, unless for other cause their removal should be required. 

The debate on this bill was one of much interest ; the power of 
removal by the executive being one of the topics of discussion. This 
subject was ably argued by Mr. Webster ; and as his opinion, or at least 
the argument by which it is sustained, differs somewhat from any which 
we have elsewhere given on this controverted question, a sketch of it is 
presented. 

Mr. W. admitted that the power of the president to remove officers at 
will, was settled by construction, by precedent, by practice, and by 
statute. But he believed that the original decision, by the first congress, 
was wrong. The constitution did not expressly confer this power : those 
who maintain its existence, in the single hands of the president, derived 
it from the clause which says, " the executive power shall be vested in 
a president." The power of removal, it was said, was an executive 
power, and was therefore included. But the question was. What is exe- 
cutive power ; and what are its boundaries ? He thought it was not 
the intention of the framers of our written constitution to confer it in the 
lump. When speaking of executive power, did they mean executive 
power as known in England, or as in France, or as in Russia ? It difi'ered 
in all these countries. He thought they meant that one magistrate, to 
be called president, should hold the executive authority ; but they meant, 
further, that he should hold it according to the grants and limitations 
of the constitution itself They did not intend a sweeping gift of prero- 
gative, as was evident from their proceeding immediately after using 
these general words, to enumerate and define specifically the several dis- 
tinct and particular authorities of the president. 

If the power was an executive power, it must be implied from the gen- 
eral words. But the power of appointment was not left to be so implied ; 
why should the power of removal have been so left ? Both were closely 
connected .; one was indispensable to the other ; why then was one care- 
fully expressed and defined, and not a word said about the other ? 
Nothing was said in the constitution about the power of removal, because 
it was not a separate and distinct power. It was a part of the power of 



POWER OF REMOVAL. Q^ 

appointment, going with it, or resulting from it. The constitution <t' 
the laws might separate these powers, or in prescribing the tenure of 
oflSice, might place the officer beyond the reach of the appointing power. 
But where officers hold their places at will, that will is necessarily the 
will of the appointing power, because the exercise of the power of appoint- 
ment at once displaces such officers, without any previous act of removal. 
There was no such thing as a distinct official act of removal. Hence it 
was manifest, that whoever held the power of appointment held also the 
power of removal. And as it was the president and senate, not the pre- 
sident alone, who had the power of appointment, they must, according 
to the construction of the constitution, hold the power of removal. 

The decision of 1789, he said, had been followed by a strange anomaly, 
showing that it did not rest on a just principle. The natural connection 
between the appointing power and the removing power, had always led 
the president to bring about a removal by the process of a new appoint- 
ment. But the senate sometimes rejected the new nomination. What 
then became of the old incumbent ? Was he out of office ? or was he 
still in ? He had not been turned out by any exercise of the power of 
appointment, for no appointment had been made. He had not been 
removed by any distinct and separate act of removal, for no such act had 
been performed or attempted. Those, therefore, who maintained that 
the power of removal existed in the president alone were driven to very 
near absurdity. They were forced to the necessity of holding that the 
removal had been accomplished by the mere nomination of a successor, 
so that the removing power was made incident, not to the appointing 
power, but to a part of it, the nominating power. The nomination, 
though rendered null and void in its main object by the non-concurrence 
of the senate, was nevertheless held to be good and valid to bring about 
that which resulted from an appointment, that is, the removal of the 
person actually in office. In other words, the nomination produced the 
consequences of an appointment, or some of them, though it were itself 
no appointment, and effected no appointment. This appeared to him 
any thing but sound reasoning and just construction. 

Again : a nomination to an office already filled, had sometimes been 
sent to the senate, and, before it had been acted on, withdrawn. What 
was the effect of such a nomination ? If a mere nomination turned out 
an incumbent, then he was out, whatever became of the nomination. 
But the president had acted upon the idea that a nomination made, and 
afterwards withdrawn, did not remove the incumbent. Even this was 
not the end of the inconsistencies to which the prevailing doctrine had 
led. Nominations to offices already filled had been before the senate 
for months, the incumbents continuing to discharge their official duties 



528 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

until tlieir successors had been confirmed, and received their commissions. 
So that, if the nomination were confirmed, the nomination itself made no 
removal. The removal, then, waited to be brought about by the appoint- 
ment; but if the nomination should be rejected, then the nomination 
itself, it was contended, had efi'octed the removal. Who could defend 
opinions which led to such results ? 

We subjoin the substance of some of the remarks of Mr. White, of 
Tennessee, on the practice of removing from office on the ground of 
party difi'erences, or, as it is sometimes expressed, of " punishing men 
for their political opinions." Mr. White was a friend and supporter of 
the administration, and was one of the committee, who, in 1826, reported 
the bill similar to the one now under consideration, and entitled, " A 
bill to secure in office the faithful collectors and disbursers of the reve- 
nue, and to displace defaulters." That bill, like the present, contained 
the provision for the repeal of the first and second sections of the act 
of 1820. These sections had been intended to insure fidelity in account- 
ing officers, by making them periodically accountable. 

But in 1826, the committee believed, said Mr. White, that in the 
struggles for place and power between parties, evils not foreseen were 
apprehended. All these officers going out at the end of every four years, 
and being entirely dependent on the will of the president for the renewal 
of their commissions, might induce them to look more to their own situa- 
tion than to the public welfare, and to conform their opinions to the 
wishes of the president. If he was a candidate for reelection himself, 
they would be likely to vote for him ; or, if one of his friends was the 
candidate, they would vote for him, although they might believe the pub- 
lic interest would be most promoted by the election of his opponent. 
It was no answer to this argument to say it cast reproach upon these offi- 
cers to suppose their opinions would be thus surrendered. Was it, ho 
asked, a reproach to say that they were men, and must have the means 
of living ? When a man obtained one of these offices, he and his family 
became dependent on the quarter's salary for food and clothing. To be 
deprived of the office, was to be deprived of his present means of obtain- 
ing an honest livelihood. Under such circumstances, it was likely he 
would not give his judgment fair play, but would conform his opinion to 
that of the man who had his all in his power ; or, if he had formed an 
unbiased opinion of the merits of opposing candidates, he might not 
have the fortitude to express it, either in his conversation or by his vote. 
The probability was, that he would soon lose that manly independence 
so essential to the preservation of a free government. 

But this influence extended, he said, to all the family connections of 
this vast array of officers — an influence increased by the fact of his 



BRANCH MINT. 629 

being a public officer, being presumed to be a better judge, in that situa- 
tion, of the fitness of a presidential candidate, than if he \Nere a private 
man. Hence, in 1826, he, as a member of the committee, came to tho 
conclusion that it was dangerous to bave so vast a power in the hands 
of the executive ; and through their chairman, (Mr. Benton) expressed 
that opinion to the world. The change of administration had not 
changed his views. His opinions were not controlled by party consid- 
erations. 

Under the laws as they then were, office-hunting would become a 
science. Men would come to Washington, to get one set turned out and 
another put in by misrepresentations and stratagem. This practice the 
proposed law would discourage. It would also check the thirst for office ; 
because, if a man was removed, his fault, whether incapacity, dishonesty, 
or intemperance, would be exposed. And if a man should be injured, 
he would know how and by whom, and he could vindicate his character, 
not by a controversy with the president, but against him by whose false- 
hood the president had been misled. It would also secure honest offi- 
cers with honest political opinions. No president would remove an offi- 
cer for a mere difference in politics, when he knew this reason was to be 
put on record, and to remain through all time. 

We very much mistake if these sentiments do not meet with a cordial 
response in every intelligent, unprejudiced mind. The practice of dis- 
pensing rewards and punishments according to services rendered or 
refused to the successful candidate for the executive chair, naturally 
tends to destroy the independence of those who seek to secure a partici- 
pation in the patronage which it has to bestow. If a man depends for 
his bread upon his political opinions, there is no assurance that these 
opinions will be honestly and fearlessly expressed. And in proportion 
as the elective franchise is corrupted, will the tenure of our liberties be 
impaired. 

An act was passed at this session establishing three branches of the 
mint : one at New Orleans for coining gold and silver ; one at Charlotte, 
in North Carolina, and one at Dahlonega, in Georgia. On the question 
of the passage of the bill for creating these mints, Mr. Hill spoke in 
opposition to it. If he believed it would be the means of displacing a 
paper circulation by one of specie, he would consent to some expense to 
effect the object. But he believed the quantity of gold to be coined at 
those places was insufficient to justify the expense necessary to erect 
these establishments and to keep them in operation. The mint at Phila- 
delphia had been found ample for all the wants of the country. The 
senator from Missouri had declared the system of mints to be a part of 
the hard money system and supposed hard money could not be diffused 



630 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

through the west and south if these mints were not established. He 
(Mr. H.) also was a friend of a hard money currency; but it should be 
recollected that banks were the natural enemies of a hard money circu- 
lation. Small bank notes would destroy the circulation of hard money. 
He objected also to the bill, that it would increase the executive patron- 
age to the amount of at least one hundred thousand dollars. 

Mr. Benton viewed the question as one of currency. Not less than 
six hundred banks in the union were employed in coining paper money. 
It was time that this miserable trash should be utterly proscribed. He 
wished to see the country return to that species of currency which 
existed forty-five years ago, when the federal revenues were paid in 
gold and silver. The gold bill passed at the last session was the first 
step towards a sound circulating medium — gold and silver. This was 
a question of paper on one side, and of gold on the other. 

The bill was supported farther by Messrs. Calhoun, Waggaman, 
Brown, of N. C, and King, of Georgia; and opposed by Messrs. Clay, 
Freiiughuysen, and others. It was passed by ayes, 24, against 19 noes 
In the house, ayes, 115 ; noes, 60. 



CHAPTER LI. 

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. PROSPECT OF WAR WITH PRANCE. DEBATE ON 

THE LOST FORTIFICATION BILL. 

The delay of the French government in making provision for the 
debt due the United States under the treaty of 1831, has been already 
mentioned. The chambers having repeatedly refused to make the 
necessary appropriations, the president, in his annual message of Decem- 
ber, 1834, suggested, as a measure of redress, reprisals upon French 
commerce, in case the chambers should again adjourn without making 
provision for the indemnity. The subject was in each house referred to 
the committee on foreign relations. 

On the 6th of January, 1835, the senate committee made a report 
concludiug with a resolution, that it was inexpedient to pass such a law dur- 
ing the present session of the chambers. It was thought most proper 
to await the issue of the new appeal to that body. The act, though 
contingent on that issue, would imply a distrust of the French govern- 
ment, and bj being construed into a menace, might prevent the passage 



FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. 631 

of the bill. This opinion was afterward strengthened by that of Mr 
Livingston, our minister at Paris, who in a despatch to the secretary of 
state, dated January 11, advised the same course. 

On the 7th of February, 1835, in compliance with a request of the 
house, the president communicated to that body extracts from despatches 
received from Mr. Livingston at Paris, representing the passage of the 
bill by the chambers as improbable. The house was surprised by a 
motion from Mr. Adams, that the message and extracts be referred to 
the committee on foreign relations, with instructions to report on the 
subject forthwith. The papers were read, and after an animated debate, 
were referred without instructions. The singular motion to require, on 
a subject so important, an immediate report, which is usually asked for 
only on subjects already well understood, induced the belief that it was 
intended to propose a speedy resort to reprisals, if not a declaration of 
war itself. He only wished, however, as he afterwards explained his 
remarks, that the house should avail itself of all the time it had remaining 
in deliberating on the posture of affairs, as the measure of the president, 
or some other which the national honor might require, might possibly 
eventuate in war. The senate had deliberated, and determined to dodge 
the question : the house might come to a like conclusion. 

In the house, on the 27 th of February, the committee made a report, 
and submitted three resolutions: (1.) That it was incompatible with our 
rights and honor farther to negotiate in relation to the treaty, and that 
the house would insist on its execution. (2.) Discharging the committee 
from the farther consideration of the subject. (3.) That contingent 
preparation ought to be made to meet any emergency growing out of 
our relations with France. The resolutions were unanimously adopted, 
after the first had been modified by striking out the first part of it which 
declared against farther negotiation, leaving that optional with the 
president. This modification was the result of a motion of Mr. Adams. 
The debate on this question was not one of a party character. Mr, 
Adams went farther in support of the measures proposed by the presi- 
dent, than others of the same party, and most of the administration 
members. It may be inferred from the general tenor of the debate, 
that if the chambers again adjourned without making the appropriation, 
some retaliatory measure would thereafter receive the sanction of the 
house. 

On the 25th of February, the president communicated to the senate 
fresh correspondence between the two governments, which was referred 
to the committee on foreign relations, who reported, the 3d of March, 
that nothing in the correspondence gave cause for changing the position 
which the senate had taken on the subject. It appeared that the king 



Gj2 the AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of France Lad been greatly irritated by the president's recommendation 
of reprisals, and by what he conceived an imputation to him of bad faith, 
He recalled his minister at Washington, and directed the substitution 
of a charge d'affaires ; and passports were tendered to Mr. Livingston 
at Paris. Mr. L., however, remained, awaiting the orders of his gov- 
ernment. These had been transmitted, and required him to return to 
the United States ; and in the event of the passage of the bill, to leave 
a charge d'affaires. 

The passage of the bill by the French chambers was supposed to have 
been retarded by the injudicious publication of extracts from Mr. Rives' 
correspondence, boasting that he had overmatched the French ministers 
in the negotiation, and also of certain portions of Mr. Livingston's cor- 
respondence, equally offensive, he having suggested that the French gov- 
ernment might be influenced by fear. These, and especially the recom- 
mendation of the president's message of a law authorizing reprisals, 
which was regarded as peculiarly offensive to the dignity of France, 
were made the pretext for delaying justice. In April, the bill was 
passed, by the strong vote of 289 to 137. Before its passage, however, 
it received an amendment — intended, probably, as a salvo to their 
wounded pride — providing, that certain payments should be made only 
after a satisfactory explanation or apology as to the message of the presi- 
dent should have been received by the French government. 

Before leaving Paris, (April 25, 1835,) Mr. Livingston, with the ap- 
probation of the president, addressed a letter to the duke de Broglie, 
with the view of satisfying that government in regard to the required 
explanation. The form of our government, and the functions of the 
president were such, that no foreign power had a right to ask for ex- 
planations of any communication he might make to congress. Mr. L. 
£aid there was no just ground for the charge, that the message impeached 
the good faith of his majesty's government. As to the measure of redress 
proposed in the message, it was in accordance with the law and practice 
of nations ; it was necessary, and not objectionable, unless couched in 
offensive language. Mr. L. cited a case. While France and England 
were making aggressions upon our commerce, congress passed a law de- 
claring that if these aggressions did not cease, we should hold no inter- 
course with them. But neither government complained of the act as a 
threat, or thought it dishonorable to deliberate under its pressure. 
France was even induced to accept its condition, and repealed her Berlin 
and Milan decrees. 

Although war was not generally apprehended, yet as preparation for 
such an emergency might become necessary before the next meeting of 
congress, on the last night of the session, March 3, 1835, and without 



PROSPECT OF WAR WITH FRANCE. 633 

any previous intimation, as was alleged, an amendment to the fortifica- 
tion bill was offered in the house, proposing to add $3,000,000, to be ex- 
pended under the direction of the president, if he should deem it neces- 
sary, for the defense of the country. The amendment was adopted by 
the house ; but it was opposed in the senate as conferring on the presi- 
dent unlimited military power, and rejected, 29 to 16. The house in- 
sisted on its amendment ; and the senate adhered to its disagreement, 
by a vote of 29 to 1 7. A committee of conference was appointed. In- 
stead of three millions, there was inserted, $300,000 for arming the forti- 
fications, and $500,000 for repairing and equipping the ships of war. 
The senate awaited the action of the house; and, at eleven o'clock at 
night, sent a message to that body, which, for some cause not stated, did 
not act upoa it : and, as a consequence, the whole bill was lost ; and not 
a dollar for fortifications of any kind was appropriated ! 

The loss of this bill, became, at the nest session, a subject of exciting 
debate in both houses ; each house, or rather, members of each house, 
charging it to the neglect or dereliction of the other. In the house ■ of 
representatives, particularly, the debate was criminating and virulent. 

The explanation of Mr. Livingston failed to satisfy the French gov- 
ernment ; and the bill which had passed the chamber of deputies, after- 
wards received the sanction of the chamber of peers and the king : and 
no farther steps were taken for the payment of the indemnity. 

The president, in his next annual message, December, 1835, again 
presented the subject to congress. He vindicated the message of 1834, 
as giving no just cause of offense ; and although he firmly maintained 
the ground he had taken, his language was of a pacific character. 
Advices, he said, were daily expected from France, which would be 
promptly communicated. Accordingly, on the 18th of January, 1836, 
a message, accompanied by the official correspondence between the two 
governments, was communicated to congress ; from which it appeared, 
that France still required, as a condition of paying the indemnity, an 
apology, which the president considered " incompatible with the honor 
and independence of the United States." And he says: " This preten- 
sion (that of interfering in the communications between the different 
branches of our government) is rendered the more unreasonable by the 
fact, that the substance of the required explanation has been repeatedly 
and voluntarily given before it was insisted on as a condition — a condi- 
tion the more humiliating, because it is demanded as the equivalent of a 
pecuniary consideration." 

In this state of affairs, the president recommended, as a just measure 
af retaliation, the prohibition of French vessels and French products 
from our ports, oi the adoption of some other proper remedy. Tho 



634 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



Bame message informed congress, that France was preparing a fleet des- 
tined for our seas. This, however, would not deter the'government from 
the discharge of its duties. 

Mr. Buchanan expressed his entire approbation of the general tone 
and spirit of the message, and his disappointment at the non-acceptance, 
by France, of the president's explanation. lie hoped, however, that, on 
the receipt of this message, the French government would reconsider the 
determination. He had expected a message of a stronger character. 
But the recommendation was merely the exclusion of French ships and 
productions from our ports. The winea and silks had, for the four 
years since the ratification of the treaty, been admitted on the favorable 
terms stipulated in the treaty. The withdrawal of these advantages was 
the mildest measure that could have been recommended. 

Mr. Calhoun said he had heard the message, not with the agreeable 
sensations of the senator from Pennsylvania, but with profound regret. 
He had apprehended no war ; but if the recommendations of the presi- 
dent were adopted, it would be almost inevitable. The president's 
course throughout had been such as tended to produce a conflict between 
the two nations ; and if it should come, our government would be the 
responsible party. He believed the king was disposed to pay our claims ; 
but the president published to the world Mr. Rives' boastful communi- 
cation, which caused the chambers to hesitate. Knowing the appropria- 
tion depended upon the chamber, and without waiting for its action, the 
bill was drawn for the first instalment before it could possibly be paid. 
A protest and much irritation followed. Next came the president's 
message, asking for authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal if 
the appropriation were not made — a measure that naturally leads to 
war. The appropriation was made, but with the condition which caused 
the present difficulty. The honor of France did not require it ; but the 
ministry were obliged to accept it to save the bill. We should not for- 
get that the acts of our executive had caused its insertion. There was 
some hope that the last annual message would be favorably received in 
France. Why then this message recommending preparations and non- 
intercourse before we had heard how the message had been received ? 
In a war, France could injure us more than we could her. If war came, 
we must declare it. This was a reason why France should prepare for 
the worst. Such preparation ought fairly to be considered, not as a 
menace, but as a precautionary measure induced by our acts. 

Mr. Cuthbert, in reply, alluding to the patriotic course of Mr. Cal- 
houn in congress in relation to the war of 1812, said: "The senator 
from South Carolina says, if wo arm, war must follow. We are told we 
dare not do so. That voice which twenty-four years ago lighted thtj 



DEBATE ON THE LOST FORTIFICATION BILL. 635 

fires of confidence and patriotism in the hearts of all who heard him, now 
humbles itself, and would humble this senate, before a foreign govern- 
ment. Dare not arm ! Shame ! Shame ! that such a sentiment should 
have been uttered here." 

Mr. Buchanan repeated the belief that the message tended to peace 
and not war. He regretted to hear it said that, if war should come, we 
would be the authors of it. He deprecated the effect which so potent a 
voice would produce on the other side of the Atlantic. He was glad 
that this was not the sentiment of either house, both houses having de- 
clared that the treaty must be maintained. It was also at war with the 
feelings and opinions of the American people. Whilst he believed the 
message would prove to be the olive branch of peace, it was our duty 
to prepare for the worst. Whilst a powerful fleet was riding along our 
Bouthern coast in a menacing attitude, we should not sit here and with- 
hold from the president the means of placing our country in a state of 
defense. 

On the 12th of January, 1836, in the senate, a resolution, offered the 
day before by Mr. Benton, was taken up. It proposed to apply the 
surplus revenue and the dividends of stock receivable from the bank of 
the United States, to the general defense and permanent security of the 
country ; and called on the president for information of the probable 
amount required for sundry specific objects. Although these objects 
were of a general and permanent nature, Mr. Benton considered the , 
large French fleet near our coast as furnishing an additional reason for 
adopting his proposition. The present defenseless condition he charged 
to the loss of the fortification bill at the last session, for which, he said, 
the senate was responsible. The three million appropriation had been 
lost by the opposition of the senate, which had carried with it the whole 
bill, containing thirteen specific appropriations for works of defense. The 
senate had also opposed a motion made in pursuance of a report of the 
military committee to insert $500,000 for the construction and arming 
of fortifications. In view of this want of preparation it was, that a 
French paper had assigned as a reason for the advance of the squadron 
upon us, that " America would have no force capable of being opposed 
to it." He did not believe there would be war, but he went for national 
defense, because that policy was right in itself. We were in a humiliat- 
ing and defenseless state, and our honor required of us the work of 
national defense. Above all, it was the only manly way of letting 
France know that she had committed a mistake in sending this fleet 
upon us. 

Messrs. Leigh, G^ldsborough, and Webster, replied to Mr. Benton, 
each of whom gave a history of the " lost fortification bill." and all con- 



636 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

currcd iu the fnllowing facts : The bill came to the senate from the 
house, where such bills originate. It contained no special appropriation 
indicating an apprehension of a collision with France. It was referred 
to the committee on finance, and reported with amendments proposing 
an increase of appropriations. It passed the senate the 24th of Feb- 
ruary, one whole week before the close of the session, and went to the 
house, where it remained until the last night of the session without 
action upon it, and without any notice having been given to the senate 
that any thing new or important was to be proposed. The senate com- 
menced its evening session at 5 o'clock ; and not until after that hour 
was it returned to the senate, when it came with the three million appro- 
priation, as a contingent fund, without any specification, which the presi- 
dent might expend for defense just when and where he pleased ; thus 
virtually investing him with the power to determine the question of war 
or peace. The senate disagreed to the amendment, and returned the 
bill to the other house, which insisted on the amendment, and quickly 
sent it back. The senate adhered to its disagreement. A committee 
of conference was agreed to. The senate's members of this committee 
left the chamber fifteen minutes before eleven, and returned fifteen or 
twenty minutes after eleven, allowing ample time to act upon the report 
of the committee of conference, even though the session had terminated 
at midnight. It was agreed in conference to add, in specific terms, 
!$500,000 for the naval service, and $300,000 for fortifications. The 
senate waited some hours for the bill, and then sent a message remind- 
ing the house of the conference : but no answer came. The committee 
of the house who had the bill in possession, did not report the result of 
the conference, and there the bill died. 

But what was preeminently " the great debate " on the question as to 
the house in which the fortification bill was lost, occurred in the house 
on the 22d of January, and on subsequent days. The speakers were 
Messrs. John Q. Adams and Cambreleng in defense of the house, and 
Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in opposition. The whole subject was embraced 
in the discussion. 

Mr. Adams maintained that the objects of the three million appro- 
priation were sufficiently specific. It was to be expended for the ^^ mili- 
tary and naval service, including fortifications^ and ordinance, and 
increase of the navy ;'''' and only in the event of its becoming necessary 
for the defense of the country, prior to the next session of congress, an 
interval of nine months, during which no other provision could have been 
made against a sudden invasion. The appropriation, he said, had been 
objected to because it had not been called for by the executive; and 
when the executive had told them it was in accordance with his wishes, 



DEBATE ON THE LOST FORTIFICATION BILL. 637 

the objection was, that it was approved by him ; and the supporters of 
the appropriation were charged with man-worship. He had not approved 
the measures recommended by the president, of issuing letters of marque 
and reprisal, nor of commercial restriction ; neither had the house ap- 
proved them ; but the house and the people had done homage to the spirit 
which had urged the recommendation even of measures which they did 
not approve. 

There were at the last session, said Mr. A., three systems of policy 
to be pursued with regard to the controversy with France : first, the 
system of the president ; second, that of the senate, to do nothing ; and 
third, that of the house, which was difiierent from both the preceding. 
It had been a subject of ardent deliberation and debate during the last 
week of the session ; and their resolutions were adopted only the day 
before the last of the session. He gave a history of the action of the 
house upon the fortification bill, and charged its death to the senatorial 
vote to adhere. He also charged the senate with having manifested bad 
temper both to the president and to the house of representatives. 

Mr. Wise acquitted both houses of the responsibility of defeating the 
fortification bill of the last session : both were innocent, as he could 
show by the journal and other testimony ; both had desired the passage 
of the bill. And he then proceeded to show that Mr. Cambreleng was 
either wholly, or with others of his party, chargeable with the loss of 
that bill. Mr. C. had after the close of the preceding session, given as 
a reason for his not reporting to the house the result of the conference 
between the two houses, that, before the committee were able to report, 
the hour of twelve had arrived, when, in the opinion of many members, 
the constitutional term of the house ceased, and they had no right to 
vote; and also that there had been no quorum present, as appeared from 
the votes of the house, from the time of the return of the committee till 
the adjournment, after three o'clock. 

Mr. W. referred to the journal of the last session, showing that seve- 
ral votes had been taken after the return of the committee, and after 
twelve o'clock, when a quorum was present. Among those who voted 
knowing that hour to have passed, were some who afterwards excused 
themselves from voting, for the alleged reason that the constitutional 
term of the house had expired. Various subjects had been acted on by 
a quorum after twelve o'clock ; Mr. Cambreleng participating therein. 
The want of a quorum, therefore, he said, could not have prevented 
action on the fortification bill. After it was notorious that the hour 
was passed, a vote to adjourn was negatived, 103 to 15, Mr. C. voting in 
the negative, showing that he had no conscientious scruples against 
deliberating after midnight. Only three less than a quorum voted on 



638 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the adjournment; and to his certain knowledge there were more than 
three present who did not vote; so that Mr. C. could easily have ^;om- 
manded a quorum if he had desired to make his report of the committee 
of conferees. A report in relation to a national foundry was after this 
received and acted on ; and nine communications from executive depart- 
ments were laid before the house. 

"While thus acting, said Mr. W., the message of the senate came, 
respectfully reminding the house of the report of the committee of con- 
ference. Whereupon Mr. Cambrcleng, chairman of that committee, 
stated that he declined to report, on the ground that, from the vote on 
granting compensation to Robert P. Letcher, which vote was decided at 
the time the committee returned, it was ascertained that a quorum was 
not present ; and farther, that the constitutional term of the house had 
expired. The house had been waiting for the report ; and this was the 
first intimation that none was to be made. On the Cumberland road 
bill, there were 174 votes — 53 more than a quorum. Of the members 
voting, 87 were Van Buren men, and 87 opposition and for White. 
Soon after, on the Letcher resolution, only 113 voted ; 33 Van Buren; 
opposition and for White, 80. What became of these 54 missing votes ? 
There were more than twenty present who voted, or refused, according 
to circumstances, or the wishes of party leaders. On one motion to 
adjourn, of the 87 Van Buren men, only 41 voted; not voting and 
absent, 54; while of the opposition and the friends of White, 77 voted. 
On another motion to adjourn, 39 Van Buren men voted, and 72 oppo- 
sition and for White. Tliis desertion Mr. W. believed to be designed ; 
and he mentioned several facts which strengthened this belief. 

Mr. W. also said there was design in withholding a knowledge of the 
president's wishes in relation to the three million appropriation. A few 
knew it, and though chairman of the principal committees, they did not 
make it known even to their committees, much less to the house. It was 
whispered to a few others, who were told " not to say snaj thing about 
it." And said Mr. Wise : " You, Mr. Speaker, you I charge with the 
guilt of that fact ! " He here read a written statement to this effect from 
Luke Lea, a member from Tennessee, corroborated by Mr. Bunch, of the 
same state. Mr. Polk, the speaker, was at that time chairman of the 
committee of ways and means. Two members had hesitated to vote for 
the three uuUion appropriation unasked for by the president. Mr. P. 
having been asked by one of them, said the president desired it, " but 
you need not say any thing about it." The speaker, on being directly 
interrogated by Mr. Wise, confessed that Mr. Lea's statement was sub- 
stantially true, but he did not recollect having enjoined secrecy. 

The speech of Mr. Wise was very vehement, and of great length, era. 
bracing many topics not included in the foregoing sketch. 



DEBATE ON THE LOST FORTIFICATION BILL. 639 

Mr Cambreleng replied, contending that there had been no quorum 
after the return of the committee ; and, in confirmation of his statement, 
he read from the journal. He had voted several times against adjourn- 
ment, anxious to get a quorum, but no quorum voted. The business 
preparatory to adjournment was all that was done after the passage of 
the Cumberland road bill, for which he had voted before he left the 
house as a member of the conference committee. Nothing was there- 
after done but to hear certain reports, and to send and receive messages to 
and from the senate and the president. He denied that the refusal to 
vote was a party measure, or that the want of a quorum had reference 
to the fortification bill, or the three million appropriation. Mr. C, 
defended the proposition to place this sum. at the disposal of the presi- 
dent, and cited, as precedents, a large number of similar instances under 
the administrations of Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 

It appears from the journals of 1835, that Mr. Lewis, one of the com- 
mittee, took from Mr. Cambreleng the report with the intention of offer- 
ing it; but on counting the members, the tellers reported only 113. 
Several successive votes for adjournment showed the want of a quorum. 
On a motion to amend a motion to inform the senate that the house 
was ready to adjourn, so as to make it read, " that the house having no 
quorum, was ready to adjourn," Mr. Cambreleng said there had not been a 
quorum for an hour or two. Mr. Reed said the committee of conference 
had agreed to a report, and as a quorum was undoubtedly present, it ought 
to be acted upon. The amendment declared what was not the fact : 
there was a quorum present. Mr. Lewis moved a call of the house. Mr. 
Cambreleng said : I protest against the right to call the house. What 
member will answer to his name ? [" I will, I will," exclaimed many 
members.] I aui as much in favor (said Mr. C.) of the fortification bill 
as is the gentleman from New Jersey ; but I say the responsibility of its 
faili'Tu rests up* in the senate, and not upon us. The bill was defeated 
by rho senate. ["No!" "No!" "not so!" was exclaimed by many 
voic-.-i^l Mr. ISar.i'iiiger said the bill was defeated by an intrigue here in 
thit -ov-^e. if gcs'iemen desired names, he would give them. But if 
thic •*.(,.': .li.cliued, he would say that there were members who now sat in 
theu irv..;. and would not answer to their names, who did so in consum- 
mate. »m /i 1^3 iuirigue. Mr. B. called for tellers on the motion. Ayes, 
56 ; 1' -J 2G — no quorum. The house then adjourned. 

Oi T,he P'iU of February, 1836, the president informed congress that 
the go.eininent cf Great Britain had offered its mediation for the adjust- 
ment of the dispute between the United States and France ; and that he 
had r icepter it : carefully guarding, however, that point in the contro- 
versy which, as i* involved our honor and independence, did not admit 



640 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

of compromise. He therefore recommended a suspension of all retalia- 
tory proceedings against France ; but again urged preparations for tbe 
defense of the seaboard and the protection of our commerce. On the 
22d, followed another message, communicating the correspondence 
between the secretary of state, (Mr. Forsyth,) and the British charge 
d' aflPaires, relative to the mediation, and repeating his recommendation 
to provide for defense, in case of the commencement of hostilities during 
the recess of congress. 

On the 10th of May, the president announced to congress the pay- 
ment, by France, of the instalments due under the treaty of indemnity. 



CHAPTER LII. 

THE ANTI-SLAVER'i QUESTION. DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS. INCENBIART 

PUBLICATIONS. ATHERTON's RESOLUTIONS. 

Among the various excitements that have at different times prevailed 
in the United States, few have been more pervading and intense than 
that which was consequent upon the early anti-slavery organizations, 
subsequent to the year 1833, in which the national anti-slavery society 
was formed. At no time did this excitement reach a higher tempera- 
ture than in the years 1835 and 1836. Societies were formed in all 
the northern states ; in some of them in almost ^very co\inty ; and in 
some portions of these states, in nearly every town. Alarm at this 
moveinent was soon taken at the south ; meetings were held, at which 
the most denunciatory resolutions against the abolitionists wore adopt^3d ; 
and fears were expressed of a speedy dissolution of the union. 

This expression of southern sentiment was responrlo<J. to in the north. 
Opposition meetings were held in nearly all the largo cities an;! •^•o\ras 
attended by citizens of high standing, for the purpose of coui'/'.ern.cJing 
the efforts of the abolitionists. In numerous instances thi? ov-pofjuion 
was carried so far as to break up anti-slavery meetings ^j viclor.ce. 
Indeed, mobs were common occurrences, and were not uafreqa'^^i.tly 
encouraged or participated in by eminent and respectable civi/en"?. 

The great agency employed by the abolitionists which excited general 
alarm at the south, was that of the press. An immense quantity of 
anti-slavery publications was scattered over the northern s'.at^s; .'.nd 
the abolitionists were charged with sending them to tho south lo insti- 



THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. 54] 

gate the slaves to violence and bloodshed. Hence attempts were made 
to suppress anti-slavery societies and their publications. The " Eman- 
cipator," published in the city of New York, was indicted by a grand 
jury in Alabama, and a requisition by Governor Gaylo was made upon 
Governor Marcy of the state of New York, for the surrender of the 
publisher, R. J. Williams, to be tried as an oflFender against the laws 
of Alabama concerning slavery. Governor Marcy, however, not being 
able so easily as Governor Gayle, to construe Mr. Williams into a 
" fugitive from justice," the demand was not complied with. 

Another expedient resorted to was the offering of rewards for offenders. 
A New Orleans paper contained an advertisement from a committee of 
vigilance of a parish in Louisiana, offering a reward of $50,000 for the 
delivery of Arthur Tappan, a conspicuous abolitionist in the city of 
New York. Rewards also for Lewis Tappan, and other persons, were 
offered. Nor were offers confined to individuals and voluntary associa- 
tions. By an enactment of the legislature of the state of Mississippi 
a reward of $5,000 was offered for the arrest and prosecution of any 
person who should be convicted of having circulated the " Liberator " 
or any other seditious paper, pamphlet, or letter, within that state. In 
the legislatures of one or two other states, it is believed, similar propo- 
sitions were made, and carried through one or both branches. 

In the proceedings of the meetings held in Boston, Lowell, New York 
Albany, Philadelphia, and other places, are found expressions of sym- 
pathy for the south, and censures of abolitionists, which would receive 
few votes in any public meeting at the present day. These anti-aboli- 
tion meetings were gratifying to the people of the south. The proceed- 
ings of the Albany meeting were thus noticed by the Richmond 
Enquirer : " Amid these proceedings, we hail with delight the meeting 
and resolutions of Albany. They are up to the hub. They are in 
perfect unison with the rights and sentiments of the south. They are 
divested of ail the metaphysics and abstractions of the resolutions of 

New York. They are free from all qualifications and equivocation no 

idle denunciations of the evils of slavery — no pompous assertions of the 
right of discussion. But they announce in the most unqualified terms 
that it is a southern question, which belongs, under the federal compact 
exclusively to the south. They denounce all discussions upon it in the 
other states, which, from their very nature, are calculated to ' inflame 
the public mind,' and put in jeopardy the lives and property of their 
fellow-citizens, as at war with every rule of moral duty, and every sug- 
gestion of humanity ; and they reprobate the incendiaries who will 
persist in carrying them on, ' as disloyal to the union.' * « « • 
They pronounce these vile incendiaries to be ' disturbers of the public 

41 



642 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

peace.' They assure the south, * * • < that the great body of 
the northern people entertain opinions similar to those expressed in 
these resolutions ;' finally, ' that we plight to them our faith to maintain, 
in practice, so far as lies in our power, what we have thus solemnly 
declared.' 

" We hail this plighted faith to arrest, by ' all constitutional and 
legal means,' the movements of these incendiaries. We hail these 
pledges with pleasure ; and should it become necessary, we shall call 
upon them to redeem them in good faith, and to act, and to put down 
these disturbers of the peace." The ma7iner in which it was hoped these 
pledges would be redeemed, and these disturbers of the peace would 
be " put down" was by legislative enactments. This is expressly 
declared in the Whig, of the same city : 

" The Albany resolutions are far more acceptable than those of New 
York. They are unexceptionable in their general expressions towards 
the south, and in their views of the spirit and consequences of abolition; 
* * * and they omit any specific recognition of the right of agita- 
tion. Nothing is wanting, indeed, but that which, bemg wanting, all 
the rest, we fear, is little more than ' a sounding brass and a tinkling 
cymbal.' We mean the recognition of the power of the legislature to 
suppress the fanatics, and the recommendation to do so. This is the 
substance asked of the north by their brethren of the south ; and the 
recent manifesto of Tappan & Co. makes it plain, that without it, 
nothing efi"ective can be done ; that without it, urgent remonstrances to 
these madmen to desist, and warm professions towards the south, avail 
uot a whit. Up to the mark the north must come, if it would restore 
tranquillity and preserve the union." 

In the proceedings of the Albany meeting, the Whig could see an object 
which its neighbor, of opposite politics, appears not to have discovered. 
It says : " The failure of the Albany meeting to enforce the expediency 
of legislative enactments, is ominous. There is reason to believe that 
strong appeals were made to the leaders from various points, perhaps 
from Richmond itself, to go as far as possible, and to adopt a resolution, 
according to the south its demand for legislative enactment. Political 
importance was attached to it from the circumstance that the immediate 
friends of Mr. Van Buren and his party leaders, were to preside at tho 
meeting, and thus that an intelligent sign might be given the south, that 
he sustained her claim. We infer nothing against Mr. Van Buren him- 
self from the failure ; but we do infer this, either that his Albany par- 
tisans reject the claim, or fear to encounter public opinion by adopting 
it. Either way it may be regarded as decisive of the fate of the demand 
itself, and as conclusive that nothing will be done by the state of New 



THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. 643 

York to suppress the fanatics hy law. New York is the l;otbed of the 
sect ; and nothing being done there, what may be done elsewhere will 
avail nothing." 

The Philadelphia Inquirer said : " The south has called upon the 
north for action in relation to Grarrison and his co-workers : Philadel- 
phia, at least, has responded to this call in a spirit of the utmost liberal- 
ity. The resolutions adopted at the town meeting of Monday last, not 
only denounce the recent movements of the abolitionists, . . . but they 
expressly disclaim any ' right to interfere, directly or indirectly, with 
the subject of slavery in the southern states,' and aver that any action 
upon it by the people of the north, would be not only a violation of the 
constitution, but a presumptuous infraction of the rights of the south ; 
and further, one of them recommends to the legislature of this common- 
wealth, to enact, at the next session, certain provisions to protect our 
fellow-citizens of the south from any incendiary movements, within our 
borders, should any such hereafter be made. Are not these declarations 
to the point ? Do they not cover the whole ground ? Do they not go 
even farther than many of the resolutions passed at public meetings in 
the south ?" 

The northern anti-abolitionists received some pretty severe lectures 
for not putting their professions into practice. Said the Southern 
Patriot : " Why did not the Albany meeting recommend putting down, 
by the strong arm of the law, discussions which (it declared,) ' are at 
war with every moral duty, and every suggestion of humanity ?' Surely, 
that which is declared to be so pernicious as to be at war with every 
moral duty, and every humane suggestion, can and ought to be made 
legally punishable. It is works and not words we want." 

Despairing of seeing the progress of anti-slavery sentiment arrested 
by legislation, the south suggested the remedy of non-intercourse and 
disunion. In the resolutions of a public meeting in South Carolina, it 
was declared, " that when the southern states are reduced to the alterna- 
tive of choosing either union without liberty, or disunion with liberty and 
property, be assured they will not hesitate which to take, and will make 
the choice promptly, unitedly, and fearlessly." And it was unanimously 
resolved, " That should the non-slaveholding states omit or refuse, at 
the ensuing meeting of their respective legislatures, to put a final stop to 
the proceedings of their abolition societies, against the domestic peace of 
the south, and effectually prevent any farther interference by them with 
our slave population, by efficient penal laws, it will then become the 
solemn duty of the whole south, in order to protect themselves and secure 
their rights and property, against the unconstitutional combination of th» 
non-slaveliolding states, and the murderous designs of their abolitionists 
to withdraw from the union." 



644 THE VMERICAN STATESMAN. 

lu relation to the suspension of commercial intercourse, the Richmond 
Whig said : " The suggestion of acting upon fanaticism by withholding 
the profits of southern commerce, from those engaged either actively, or 
by countenance, in propagating its designs, is obtaining exteiisive popu- 
larity. A general persuasion prevails of its efficacy. It is an argument 
which will carry more weight than appeals to justice, humanity, and fra- 
ternal affection. It is never lost to mankind. Through the purse is the 
surest road to the understandings of men ; especially, so we have been 
taught to believe, to the understandings of those with whom the south 
is now contending. Southern commerce is essential to the north. * * * 
Can the south be blamed for cutting off the resources employed to dis- 
turb its tranquillity, and overthrow its institutions ? Where is the 
illiberality ? Where is the injustice ? That all should suffer where a 
part only are guilty, is to be deplored but not avoided. When the inno- 
cent feel the consequences, they will be stimulated to more active steps 
for the suppression of the wretches who have wrought so much mischief 
and engendered so much bad feeling. 

" The merchants are well disposed to the experiment ; but they say its 
success depends upon the country, not the cities. Without the coopera- 
tion of the country citizens — without they put their shoulders to the 
wheel, and discourage the custom of buying goods in the north, they can 
do nothing. They arc ready to promise, and to fulfill the promise, that, 
if the country will buy their goods, they shall have them as cheap and 
as good as the northern markets now supply. Let none be alarmed by 
the silly and traitorous clamor put up about the union. The articles of 
union, we presume, do not inhibit the south from caring for its own 
safety, or promoting its own prosperity." 

Application was made to the postmaster-general to interpose his 
authority to prevent the transmission, by mail, of anti-slavery papers and 
documents. In answer to a request of a meeting in Petersburg, Vir- 
ginia, to adopt in his department some regulation to this effect, Mr. 
Kendall, under date of August 20, 1835, said, it was not in his power, 
by any lawful regulation, to obviate the evil. Such a power, if any 
necessity for it existed, ought not to be vested in the head of the execu- 
tive department. Ho, however, regarded the transmission, through the 
mail, of papers " ^ending to promote discontent, sedition, and servile war, 
from one state to another, as a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of 
the federal compact, which would justify, on the part of the injured 
states, any measure necessary to effect their exclusiDn." For the pre- 
sent, the only means of relief was " in responsibilities voluntarilj' 
assumed by the postmasters." He hoped congress would, at the next 
Bcssion, put a stop to the evil, and pledged his exertions to promote the 
idoption of a measure for that purpose. ' 



THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. 645 

The postmaster oi New York had requested the anti-blavery society 
to desist from attempting to send their publications into the southern 
states. They refusing to comply with the request, the postmaster, 
Samuel L. Gouverneur, detained their papers destined for those states, 
and addressed Mr. Kendall on the subject, who again disclaims the right 
to exclude matter from the mails ; but he adds : " If I were situated as 
you are, I would do as you have done. Postmasters may lawfully know 
in all cases the contents of newspapers, because the law expressly pro- 
vides that they shall be so put up that they may be readily examined ; 
aud if they know those contents to be calculated and designed to produce, 
and, if delivered, will certainly produce the commission of the moat 
aggravated crimes upon the property and persons of their fellow-citizens, 
it cannot be doubted that it is their duty to detain them, if not even to 
hand them over to the civil authorities. * * * If it be justifiable 
to detain papers passing through the mail, for the purpose of preventing 
or punishing isolated crimes against individuals, how much more impor- 
tant is it that this responsibility should be assumed to prevent insurrec- 
tions and save communities ! If, in time of war, a postmaster should 
detect the letter of an enemy or spy passing through the mail, which, if 
it reached its destination, would expose his country to invasion and her 
armies to destruction, ought he not to arrest it? Yet, where is his legal 
power to do so ?" 

The doctrines of the postmaster-general, advanced in these letters, 
countenancing the violation of the mails by the deputies, were the sub- 
ject of much comment. They were regarded in the northern states, by a 
large portion of the citizens — even such as were opposed to the measures 
of the abolitionists — as subversive of the liberty of the press. 

Conceiving the principles and objects of anti-slavery associations to 
be misunderstood, the officers of the American anti-slavery society pub- 
lished in its defense the following address " to the public: " 

" In behalf of the American anti-slavery society, we solicit the candid 
attention of the public to the following declaration of our principles and 
objects. Were the charges which are brought against us, made only by 
individuals who are interested in the continuance of slavery, and by such 
as are influenced solely by unworthy motives, this address would be un- 
necessary ; but there are those who merit and possess our esteem, who 
would not voluntarily do us injustice, and who have been led by gross 
misrepresentations to believe that we are pursuing measures at variance, 
iiot only with the constitutional rights of the south, but with the pre- 
cepts of humanity and religion. To such we offer the following explana- 
tions and assurances. 

" 1st. We hold that congresf has no more right to abolish slavery in 



646 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the southern states, than in the French West India islands. Of course 
we desire no national legislation on the subject. 

"2d. We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the 
legislatures of the several states in which it prevails, and that the exer- 
cise of any other than moral influence to induce such abolition, is un- 
constitutional. 

" 3d. We believe that congress has the same right to abolish slavery 
in the District of Columbia, that the state governments have within 
their respective jurisdictions, and that it is their duty to efface so foul a 
blot from the national escutcheon. 

'* 4th. We believe that American citizens have the right to express 
and publish their opinions of the constitution, laws, and institutions of 
any and every state and nation under heaven ; and we mean never to 
surrender the liberty of speech, of the press, or of conscience — blessings 
we have inherited from our fathers, and jvhich we intend, as far as we 
are able, to transmit unimpaired to our children. 

" 5th. We have uniformly deprecated all forcible attempts on the part 
of the slaves to recover their liberty. And were it in our power to ad- 
dress them, we would exhort them to observe a quiet and peaceful 
demeanor, and would assure them that no insurrectionary movements 
on their part would receive from us the slightest aid or countenance. 

" Gth. We would deplore any servile insurrection, both on account of 
the calamities which would attend it, and on account of the occasion which 
it might furnish of increased severity and oppression. 

" 7th. We are charged with sending incendiary publications to the 
south. If by the term incendiary is meant publications containing 
arguments and facts to prove slavery to be a moral and political evil, 
and that duty and policy require its immediate abolition, the charge is 
true. But if this charge is used to imply publications encouraging in- 
surrection, and designed to excite the slaves to break their fetters, the 
charge is utterly and unequivocally false. We beg our fellow citizens to 
notice, that this charge is made without proof, and by many who confess 
that they have never read our publications, and that those who make it, 
offer to the public no evidence from our writings in support of it. 

"8th. We are accused of sending our publications to the slaves, and 
it is asserted that their tendency is to excite insurrections. Both the 
charges are false. These publications are not intended for the slaves, 
and were they able to read them, they would find in them no encourage- 
ment to insurrection. 

"9th. We are accused of employing agents in the slave states to dis- 
tribute our publications. We have never had one such agent. We 
have sent no packages of our papers to any person in those states for 



THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. 647 

distribution, except to five respectable resident citizens, at their own 
request. But we have sent, by mail, single papers addressed to public 
officers, editors of newspapers, clergymen, and others. If, therefore, 
our object is to excite the slaves to insurrection, the masters are our 
agents. 

" We believe slavery to be sinful, injurious to this and to every other 
country in which it prevails ; we believe immediate emancipation to be 
the duty of every slaveholder, and that the immediate abolition of slav- 
ery, by those who have the right to abolish it, would be safe, and wise. 
These opinions we have freely expressed, and we certainly have no inten- 
tion to refrain from expressing them in future, and urging them upon 
the consciences and hearts of our fellow citizens who hold slaves, or 
apologize for slavery. 

" We believe the education of the poor is required by duty, and by a 
regard for the permanency of our republican institutions. There are 
thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow citizens, even in the free 
states, sunk in abject poverty, and who, on account of their complexion, 
are virtually kept in ignorance, and whose instruction in certain cases is 
actually prohibited by law! We are anxious to protect the rights, 
and to promote the virtue and happiness of the colored portion of our 
population, and on this account we have been charged with a design to 
encourage intermarriages between the whites and blacks. This charge 
has been repeatedly, and is now again denied, while we repeat that the 
tendency of our sentiments is to put an end to the criminal amalgama- 
tion that prevails wherever slavery exists. 

" We are accused of acts that tend to a dissolution of the union, and 
even of wishing to dissolve it. We have never ' calculated the value of 
the union,' because we believe it to be inestimable ; and that the aboli- 
tion of slavery will remove the chief danger of its dissolution ;. and one 
of the many reasons why we cherish and will endeavor to preserve the 
constitution is, that it restrains congress from making any law abridg- 
ing the freedom of speech or of the press. 

" Such, fellow citizens, are our principles — Are they unworthy of re- 
publicans and Christians ? Or are they in truth so atrocious, that in 
order to prevent their diffusion you are yourselves willing to surrender, 
at the dictation of others, the invaluable privilege of free discussion ; 
the very birthright of Americans ? Will you, in order that the abomi- 
nations of slavery may be concealed from public view, and that the 
capital of your republic may continue to be, as it now is, under the 
sanction of congress, the great slave mart of tlte American continent, 
consent that the general government, in acknowledged defiance of the 
constitution and laws shall appoint throughout the length and breadth 



648 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of your land, ten thousand censors of the press, each of whom shall 
have the right to inspect every document you may commit to the post- 
office, and to suppress every pamphlet and newspaper, whether religious 
or political, which in his sovereign pleasure he may adjudge to contain 
an incendiary article ? Surely we need not remind you, that if you 
■eubmit to such an encroachment on your liberties, the days of our 
republic are numbered, and that, although abolitionists may be the first, 
they will not be the last victims offered at the shrine of arbitrary 
power." 

The anti-slavery agitation which was spreading through the union, 
soon affected the deliberations of congi-ess. Petitions from the free 
states, praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the 
District of Columbia, were daily presented. This movement was depre- 
cated by a large majority of congress. Southern representatives, espe- 
cially, were highly inflamed. Although the petitioners asked for no legis- 
lative interference with slavery in the states, to which it was universally 
admitted the power of congress did not extend ; the exercise of the 
power within the district and the territories, would, it was feared, give 
the petitioners a great advantage in the prosecution of their ultimate 
object, the overthrow of the institution. 

The general excitement was much increased by the contrariety of 
opinion as to the manner of disposing of the petitions. Southern mem- 
bers were opposed to their reception altogether, as praying for an act 
that was unconstitutional. It was contended that congress had no right 
thus to interfere with the right of property, without the consent of the 
owners ; and also that such interfei-ence would be a violation of good 
faith with the states of Maryland and Virginia, which, it was to be pre- 
sumed, would never have ceded the territory to the general government, 
had such action on the part of congress been anticipated. The agitation 
of this question in congress, it was farther contended, would disturb the 
compromises of the constitution, endanger the union, and, if persisted 
in, destroy, by a servile war, the peace and prosperity of the country. 
Hence it was urged, that the petitions ought not to be entertained ; and 
that, without giving them a formal reception, they should be laid upon 
the table, without being referred or printed. 

The discussion of the several propositions for the disposal of the 
abolition petitions in the house, resulted in the adoption, February 8, 
1 836, of the following resolution of Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, 
which, on motion of Mr. Vinton, of Ohio, had been divided into three 
parts : " Resolved, (1.) That all the memorials which have been ofiered, 
or may hereafter be presented to this house, praying for the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, and also the resolutions offered by 



DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS. 649 

an honorable member from Maine, (Mr. Jarvis,) with the amendment 
thereto proposed by an honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) 
and every other paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation 
to that subject, be referred to a select committee; (2.) With instructions 
to report, that congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere 
in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the states of this 
confederacy ; (3.) And that, in the opinion of this house, congress ought 
not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia, be- 
cause it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and 
dangerous to the union." 

The first clause of the resolution was adopted by a vote of 174 to 48 ; 
the second, 201 to 7. The third was divided; and the first member of 
the same, which declared that congress ought not to interfere with 
slavery in the district, was carried, 163 to 47; the remaining part, 129 
to 74. Of those who voted in the negative on the last question, all, 
with a few exceptions, were whigs from the northern states; the adminis- 
tration members generally from these states, in both houses, having 
joined the south on this question. Mr. Pinckney was severely censured 
by several southern members for having moved the resolution ; because 
the power of congress over slavery in the states had not been brought in 
question ; and the affirmation of the proposition that congress had no 
such power, was to admit that it needed affirmation ; and also because 
they were opposed to the discussion of the question. Mr. Wise, on a 
subsequent occasion, alluding to the mover of the resolution, said : " I 
hiss him as a deserter from the principles of the south on the slavery 
question." 

On the 18 th of May, Mr. Pinckney, from the select committee ap- 
pointed on his motion, reported three resolutions; the first denying the 
power of congress over slavery in the states; the second, declaring that 
congress ought not to interfere with it in the District of Columbia. The 
third, which was not contemplated by the instructions to the committee, 
required all petitions and papers relating to the subject, to be at once 
laid upon the table, without being printed or referred, and without any 
other action on them. On the 25th of May, the vote was taken on the 
first resolution, under the pressure of the previous question. Mr. 
Adams said, if the house would allow him five minutes, he would prove 
the resolution to be false. Eight members were understood to have 
voted in the negative : Messrs. Adams, Jackson, and Philips, of Mass., 
Everett and Slade, of Yt., Clark, Denney, and Potts, of Penn. The 
second resolution was adopted the next day, 132 to 45; the third, 117 
to 68. 

In the senate, tha principal discussion on the disposal of abolition 



650 THE .-MERICAN STATESMAN. 

petitions was upon one from tlie society of the " Friends" in the statt of 
Pennsylvania, adopted at the Cain quarterly meeting. It was presented 
the 11th of January, by Mr. Buchanan, who said he was in favor of 
giving the memorial a respectful reception ; but he wished to put the 
question at rest. He should therefore move that the memorial be read, 
and that the prayer of the memorialists be rejected. The question on 
receiving the petition was, on the 9th of March, decided in the affirma- 
tive : ayes, 3G ; noes, 10; the latter all from southern senators. On 
the II th, the whole subject, mcluding the rejection of the petition, was 
agreed to, 34 to 6. Those who voted in the negative, were, Messrs. 
Davis and Webster, from Mass., Prentiss, of Vt., Knight, of R, I., and 
Southard, of N. J. 

But the most important action of the senate was upon a bill to pro- 
hibit the circulation of abolition publications by mail. The president 
bad in his annual message called the attention of congress to the sub- 
ject. He said : " I must also invite your attention to the painful 
excitement produced in the south, by attempts to circulate, through the 
mails, inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, in 
prints, and in various sorts of publications, calculated to stimulate them 
to insurrection, and to produce all the horrors of a servile war." He 
said it was " fortunate for the country, that the good sense and gene- 
rous feeling of the people of the nou-slaveholdiug states" were so strong 
" against the proceedings of the misguided persons who had engaged in 
these unconstitutional and wicked attempts, as to authorize the hope 
that these attempts will no longer be persisted in." But if these 
expressions of the public will should not effect the desirable result, he 
did " not doubt that the non-slaveholding states would exercise their 
authority in suppressing this interference with the constitutional rights 
of the south." And he would respectfully suggest the passing of a 
law that would " prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the 
southern states, through the mail, of incendiary publications, intended 
to instigate the slaves to insurrection." 

This part of the message was, on motion of Mr, Calhoun, referred to 
a select committee, which, in accordance with his wishes, was composed 
mainly of senators from the slave-holding states. They were, Messrs. 
Calhoun, King, of Georgia, Mangum, Linn, and Davis ; the last alone 
being from the free states. The report of the committee was made the 
4th of Februar3^ Notwithstanding four-fifths of its members were 
southern, only Messrs. Calhoun and Mangum were in favor of the entire 
report. The accompanying bill prohibited postmasters from knowingly 
putting into the mail any printed or written paper or pictorial represen- 
tation relating to slavery addressed to any person in a state in which 



INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS. 651 

their circulation was forbidden ; and it prohibited postmasters in sucli 
state from delivering such papers to any person not authorized by the 
laws of the state to receive them. And the postmasters of the offices 
where such papers were deposited, were required to give notice of the 
same from time to time ; and if the papers were not, within one month 
withdrawn by the person depositing them, they were to be burnt or other- 
wise destroyed. Mr. Linn, though dissenting from parts of the report, 
approved the bill. 

Mr. Calhoun, in his report, reiterated his favorite doctrine of state 
sovereignty ; from which he deduced the inherent right of a state to 
defend itself against internal dangers ; and he denied the right of the 
general government to assist a state, even in case of domestic violence, 
except on application of the authorities of the state itself He said it 
belonged to the slaveholding states, whose institutions were in danger, 
and not to congress, as the message supposed, to determine what papers 
were incendiary ; and he asserted the proposition, that each state was 
under obligation to prevent its citizens from disturbing the peace or 
endangering the security of other states ; and that, in case of being 
disturbed or endangered, the latter had a right to demand of the former 
the adoption of measures for their protection. And if it should neglect 
its duty, the states whose peace was assailed might resort to means to 
protect themselves, as if they were separate and independent commu- 
nities. 

As motives to suppress by law the efforts of the abolitionists, the 
report mentioned the danger of their accomplishing their object, the 
abolition of slavery in the southern states, and the consequent evils 
which would attend it. It would destroy property to the amount of 
$950,000,000, and impoverish an entire section of the union. By 
destroying the relation between the two races, the improvement of the 
condition of the colored people, now so rapidly going on, and by which 
they had been, both physically and intellectually, and in respect to the 
comforts of life, elevated to a condition enjoyed by the laboring class in 
^ew countries, and greatly superior to that of the free people of the same 
race in the non-slaveholding states, would be arrested ; and the two races 
would be placed in a state of conflict which must end in the expulsion 
or extirpation of one or the other. 

But for the fact that the president's message expressed similar appre- 
hensions of " the horrors of a servile war," and contained a similar sug- 
gestion of the interposition of the state governments to suppress the 
"wicked! attempts" of the anti-slavery societies to interfere with south- 
ern rights, it would be almost incredible that Mr. Calhoun could have 
seriously entertained such fears, or claimed for the states such powers. 



652 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

There was, however, between the message and the report this difference, 
that the former was silent as to the right of the slave states " to resort 
to means to protect themselves" against the incendiary associations. 

The bill, reported by Mr. Calhoun, sustained by the combined influence 
of his own report and the executive recommendation, made its way nearly 
through the senate. Mr. Webster opposed the bill, because it was vague 
and obscure, in not sufficiently defining the publications to be prohibited. 
Whether for or against slavery, if they " touched the subject," they 
would come under the prohibition. Even the constitution might be pro- 
hibited. And the deputy-postmaster must decide, and decide correctly, 
under pain of being removed from office ! He must make himself 
acquainted with the laws of all the states on the subject, and decide on 
them, however variant they might be with each other. The bill also 
conflicted with that provision of the constitution which guarantied the 
freedom of speech and of the press. If a newspaper came to him, he 
had a property in it ; and how could any man take that property and 
burn it without due form of law ? And how could that newspaper be 
pronounced an unlawful publication, and having no property in it, with- 
out a legal trial ? He argued against the right to examine into the 
nature of publications sent to the post-office, and said that the right of 
an individual in his papers was secured to him in every free country in 
the world. 

Mr. Clay said the papers, while in the post-office or in the mail, did no 
harm : it was their circulation — their being taken out of the mail, and 
the use made of them — that constituted the mischief; and the state au- 
thorities could apply the remedy. The instant a prohibited paper was 
handed out, whether to a citizen or a sojourner, he was subject to the 
law which might compel him to surrender or to burn it. The bill was 
vague and indefinite, unnecessary and dangerous. It applied to non- 
slaveholding as well as to slaveholding states — to papers touching slavery, 
as well for as against it : and a non-slaveholding state might, under this 
bill, prohibit publications in defense of slavery. But the law would be 
inoperative : the postmaster was not amenable, unless he delivered the pa- 
pers knoicing them to be incendiary ; and he had only to plead igno- 
rance to avoid the penalty of the law. Mr C wished to know whence 
congress derived the power to pass this law. The senator from Penn- 
sylvania had asked if the post-office power did not give the right to say 
what should be carried in the mails. There was no such power as that 
claimed in the bill. If such doctrine prevailed, the government might 
designate the persons, or parties, or classes, who should have the exclu- 
sive benefit of the mails. 

Before the question was taken on the engrossment of the bill, a mo- 



ATHERTON S RESOLUTIONS. 



653 



tion by Mr. Calhoun to amend it so as prevent the withdrawal of the pro- 
hibited papers, was negatived, 15 to 15. An amendment offered by Mr. 
Grundy, restricting the punishment of deputy-postmasters to removal 
from office, was agreed to ; and the bill was reported to the senate. Mr. 
Calhoun renewed his motion in senate, and it was again lost, 15 to 15. 
Mr. Benton, in his late work, says, that, in committee of the whole the 
vice-president did not vote in the case of a tie. The question being then 
taken on the engrossment, there was again a tie : 1 8 to 1 8. The vice- 
president having temporarily left the chair, returned, and gave the casting 
vote in the affirmative. Of the senators from the free states voting in 
the affirmative, were Messrs. Buchanan, Tallmadge and Wright. Those 
who voted in the negative from the slave states, were Messrs. Benton, 
Clay, and Kent, of Maryland. 

This casting vote of Mr. Van Buren, and the several votes of Mr. 
Wright, who voted with Mr. Calhoun on this subject, have been justified 
by their friends on the ground that Mr. Calhoun, (to use the language 
of Mr. Benton,) " had made the rejection of the bill a test of alliance 
with northern abolitionists, and a cause for the secession of the southern 
states ; and if this bill had been rejected by Mr. Van Buren's vote, the 
whole responsibility of its loss would have been thrown upon him and 
the north, and the south inflamed against those states and himself — the 
more so, as Mr. White, of Tennessee, the opposing democratic candidate 
for the presidency, gave his votes for the bill." The several successive 
tie votes have been ascribed to design — that of placing Mr. Van Buren 
in this position. With this intent, other senators voted for the bill, and 
still others absented themselves, knowing it would not finally pass. This 
supposition was strengthened by the full vote given on the question of 
its final passage : ayes, 19 ; noes, 25 ; only 4 absent : the three senators 
from the free states, Buchanan, Tallmadge and Wright, again voting 
in the affirmative; and Benton, Clay, Crittenden, Goldsborough and 
Kent, of Maryland, Leigh, Naudain, of Delaware, in all seven, from 
slave states, in the negative. Here ended another attempt of the south 
at practical nullification. 

On the nth of December, 1838, Mr. Atherton, of New Hampshire, 
offered a series of resolutions, denouncing petitions for the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, and against the slave trade between 
the states, as a plan indirectly to destroy that institution within the 
several states ; declaring that congress has no right to do that indirectly 
which it can not do directly ; that the agitation of this question for the 
above purpose, is against the true spirit and meaning of the constitution, 
and an infringement of the rights of the states affected, and a breach of 
the public faith on which they entered into the confederacy ; and that 



654 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

every petition, memorial, or paper relating in any way to slavery as 
aforesaid, should, on presentation, without further action thereon, be laid 
on the table without being debated, printed, or referred. 

After the close of a speech in support of these resolutions, Mr. A. 
moved the previous question, which was seconded, 103 to 102. A motion 
to adjourn that th3 resolutions might be printed, so that the house might 
vote understandingly, was objected to by Mr. Cushman, of New Hamp- 
shire; and the main question was ordered, 114 to 107. The resolutions 
were subsequently all adopted by different votes. That which related to 
the reception of petitions was adopted by a vote of 127 to 78. These 
resolutions, as well as their author, obtained considerable notoriety, being 
generally referred to by the friends of the right of petition, as " Ather- 
ton's gag resolutions." Although the fifth resolution, like one adopted 
at a former session, prevented a formal reception of petitions, it did no*, 
apparently affect their presentation. They were daily offered as usual : 
indeed an additional object of petition was furnished ; numerous peti- 
tions being presented for the abolition of the gag resolutions. 



CHAPTER LIII. 

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS REVENUE. DEATH OF MR. MADISON. 

ADMISSION OF ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION. RECOGNI- 
TION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS. CLAIMS AGAINST MEXICO. 

Another unsuccessful attempt was made to procure the passage of 
Mr. Clay's bill to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands. 
The sum to be distributed was about $21,000,000. It iucluded ihj 
receipts for the last three years, which were iu 1833, $3,967,082; in 
1834, $4,857,600; in 1835, $12,222,121. The proceeds for these years 
were largo beyond all precedent. The bill passed the senate, 25 to 20 ; 
but in the house it was laid on the table, by a vote of 1 1 4 to 85. 

There being no longer any hope of effecting a distribution of the pro- 
ceeds of land sales, a new plan of distribution was devised. Although 
an act had been passed at the last session, (1834-35,) to regulate the 
public deposits in the state banks, a new bill, designed to afford addi- 
tional security to these moneys, was reported iu the house by Mr. Cam- 
breleng, chairman of the committee of ways and means. Also a bill to 
regulate the deposits of the public money was introduced into the senate. 
This bill was so amended as to provide for the distribution of the sur- ' 



DISTRIBUTION OP THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 655 

plus revenue among the states. To avoid the constitutional objections 
to distribution which some were known to entertain, among whom was 
Mr. Calhoun, who had at a former session proposed to amend the con- 
stitution for this purpose, the bill was made to provide, that the money 
should be " deposited with," instead of distributed among, the several 
states ; and that, if the money should at any time be wanted by the 
general government, it was to be returned at the call of congress. 

The act was passed in June, 1836, and provided that the money in 
the treasury on the 1st of January, 1837, reserving five millions of 
dollars, should be deposited as above stated, in proportion to their 
respective representation in the senate and house of representatives of 
congress, in four quarterly instalments, commencing in January. The 
secretary of the treasury was to receive for the money certificates of 
deposits, which, in case the wants of the treasury should require it, 
might, in whole or in part, be sold by the secretary ; the sales to be 
rateable in just proportions among all the states ; and the certificates, 
when sold, to bear an interest of five per cent., payable half-yearly, and 
redeemable at the pleasure of the states. Although the money was thus 
returnable when wanted, it was presumed that it would never be called 
for. The surplus which had accumulated in 1836 from customs and land 
sales, exceeded forty millions ; of which only about twenty-eight millions 
were actually divided ; congress having found it necessary, in consequence 
of unexpected wants of the government, to suspend the fourth instal- 
ment. No part of the money has yet been called for. 

The bill passed both houses by very large majorities. The vote in the 
senate, on its engrossment, was 40 to 6 ; on its passage, 38 to 6. Those 
who voted in the negative were, Messrs. Benton, Black, Cuthbert, Grundy, 
"Walker, and Wright. In the house, the vote on its passage was 155 to 38. 
It received a strong opposition in the senate from Messrs. Benton and 
Wright. The speech of the former, after the bill had been ordered to a third 
reading, was both vehement and caustic. He denounced it as " distribution 
in disguise — as a deposit never to be reclaimed ; as a miserable evasion 
of the constitution ; as an attempt to debauch the people with their own 
money ; as plundering instead of defending the country ; as a cheat 
that would only last till the presidential election was over ; for there 
would be no money to deposit after the first or second quarter ; as 
having the effect, if not the intention, of breaking the deposit banks ; 
and finally, as disappointing its authors in their schemes of popularity." 
[Benton's View, vol. I, p. 652.] 

The bill was signed by the president " with a repugnance of feeling,' 
as that author says, "and a recoil of judgment, which it required groat 
efi"ort8 of friends to overcome ; and with a regret for it afterwards which 



656 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

he often and publicly expressed." His approval of the bill, it was un 
derstood, had been urged by the friends of Mr. Van Buren, who appre- 
hended from its rejection an adverse effect upon the democratic party 
in the election. His refusal to sign it, however, would not, it is pre- 
sumed, have prevented its becoming a law. Having repeatedly recom- 
mended " the apportionment of the surplus revenue among the several 
states according to their ratio of representation, as the most safe, just, 
and federal disposition which could be made of it," the ground of his 
subsequent opposition to the measure was a subject of much conjecture. 

On the 30th of June, 1836, president Jackson announced, by message, 
to both houses of congress, the death of James Madison, which occurred 
on the 28th. The president suggested the adoption of proper measures 
to testify their sense of respect to his memory. Mr. Rives, a senator 
from Virginia, and a neighbor of Mr. Madison, passed a brief but beau- 
tiful eulogy upon this distinguished patriot and statesman. He had 
but six days before his death written a letter to Mr. R., in which he 
spoke of his enfeebled health and trembling signature, and which Mr. 
R. thought, was the last he had ever written. Said Mr. Rives: 

" Still I trusted that his light might hold out to the 4th of July, 
that he might be restored, on that glorious anniversary, to an immortal 
companionship with those great men and patriots with whom he had 
been intimately connected in life, and whose coincident deaths, on the 
birth-day of the nation's freedom, had imparted to that day, if possible, 
an additional and mysterious illustration. But it has been ordered 
otherwise. His career has been closed at an epoch, which, forty-nine 
years ago, witnessed his most efficient labors in the illustrious assembly 
which laid the foundations of our present system of government, and 
will thus, by the remembrance of his death, as well as by the services of 
his life, more closely associate him with that great work, which is at 
once the source and the guaranty of his country's happiness and glory." 

In the house, his death was appropriately noticed by Mr. Patton, his 
immediate representative ; who was followed by Mr. Adams. 

In June, 1836, acts were passed for the admission of Arkansas and 
Michigan into the union. An act had been passed by the territorial 
legislature of Arkansas without the approbation of the governor, calling 
a convention to assemble the 1st of January, 1836, to form a state con- 
stitution preparatory to admission. This measure was taken without 
previous action by congress. The question was submitted to attorney- 
general Butler, who gave it as his opinion, that all measures to subvert 
the territorial government, and to establish in its place a new govern- 
ment, without the consent of congress, would be unlawful. The conven- 
tion was held, and a constitution adopted by the convention ; also a 



ADMISSION OF ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION. 657 

memorial to congress asking for admission. In Michigan, the legislative 
council was convened by the acting governor, Stevens T. Mason, in Sep- 
tember, 1834, -without any previous action of congress. The governor 
recommended that provision should be made to ascertain the population ; 
and in the event of its being 60,000, that a convention should be called 
to institute a state government, and provision made £or the election of 
a representative and senator to congress. He said : " The state of 
Michigan will then have a right to demand admission into the union ; 
and it is not to be anticipated that the congress of the United States 
will hesitate to yield, as a matter of right, what they have heretofore 
refused to grant as a favor." Conventions were held in both territories, 
and in 1836 copies of their constitutions were sent to congress with 
petitions for admission. 

Notwithstanding the attorney-general had decided in the case of 
Arkansas, that her action without the authority of congress was unlaw- 
ful, bills were reported in the senate in favor of the admission of both 
territories as states. They were opposed on the ground that the pro- 
ceedings of the territories in forming their constitutions were unlawful 
and revolutionary. In the case of Michigan, it was also objected, that 
the boundary dispute with Ohio was still unsettled ; and also that the 
constitution gave the right of suffrage to unnaturalized aliens. To the 
first objection it was replied, that, as congress had refused to pass the 
act asked for, the state authorities were justified in the course they 
had taken. The memorial of the legislature praying for admission 
might be considered as coming from the people, and the previous action 
of congress, being a matter of form, might be dispensed with. Against 
the objection of alien suffrage, it was urged, that Ohio and IllinoiB had 
been admitted with constitutions containing similar provisions; that of 
Ohio extending the right to all white male inhabitants twenty-one years 
of age and having had a year's residence in the state ; and that of Illi- 
nois to the same class of persons, after a residence of six mouths. In 
these states, the right still existed ; whereas the constitution of Michigan 
confined it to those who resided in the territory at the time of signing 
the constitution. 

It was deemed proper, however, in the bill to admit Michigan, to 
settle the boundary question. Accordingly, it established, as the north- 
ern boundary of the state of Ohio, a direct line from the southern ex- 
tremity of lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of Maumee (Maimi) 
bay, after the line so drawn should iotersect the eastern boundary line of 
Indiana, and from said cape, north-east to the boundary line between 
the United States and Upper Canada in Lake Erie; and thence along 
the Canada line to the west line of Pennsylvania. The admission of 

42 



658 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Michigan was placed upon the condition, that the boundaries proscribed 
Dy congress should be assented to by a state convention of delegates 
elected by the people. This bill and that for admitting Arkansas, were 
both passed June 15, 1836. The admission of Michigan, however, was 
QOt consummated until the 26th of January, 1837, when, the assent to 
the boundary line having been duly given, an act of congress declared 
the admission complete. 

On the 23d of June, 1836, a supplement to the act of June 15, was 
passed, granting to the state section number sixteen of every township, 
and where such section had been disposed of, other lands equivalent 
thereto, for the use of schools ; and granting to the state the seventy-two 
sections set apart and reserved by congress for the use and support of a 
university, to be appropriated solely to that object : also granting all 
salt springs, not exceeding twelve, with six sections of land adjoining, 
and appropriating five per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of the pub- 
lic lauds for making public roads and canals. A similar act was passed 
supplementary to that admitting Arkansas. 

In the senate, the vote on the conditional admission of Michigan, 
stood 23 to 8. The friends of the bill being resolved to press the bill- 
to a passage, many of the opposing senators had left their seats. A 
preceding vote on a motion to recommit the bill, may be considered as 
very nearly the test vote on the admission; which was, 28 to 19, being, 
as is believed, a strict party vote. The Arkansas bill passed the senate 
two days after, (April 4,) 31 to 6. Those who voted in the negative 
were Messrs. Clay, Porter, of Louisiana, Knight, and Robbius, the 
senators from llhode Island, and Swift, and Prentiss, the senators from 
Vermont. The two last objected to the provisions of the constitution 
which permitted slavery, and prohibited its abolition. The other four 
senators objected — all of them, it is believed — on account of the unau- 
thorized proceedings of the people in forming their' constitutions. Mr. 
Prentiss gave this as an additional reason for voting against the ad- 
mission. 

In the house, apprehending opposition from northern members to the 
Arkansas bill, a motion was made by Mr. "Wise to change the order of 
the two bills, giving to this the precedence. This motion was opposed 
by several southern members, as implying a distrust of their northern 
friends. It was also considered unnecessary. Said Mr. Thomas, of 
Maryland: " Let us proceed harmoniously, until we find that our harmony 
must be interrupted. We shall lose nothing by so doing. If a majo- 
rity of the house be in favor of reading a third time the Michigan bill, 
they will order it to be done. After that vote has been taken, we can 
refuse to read the bill a third time, go into committee of the whole on 



ADMISSION OP ARKANSAS AAD K'JCHIGAN INTO THE UNION. 659 

the state of the union, then consider the Arkansas bill, report it to the 
house, order it to be read a third time, and in this order proceed to read 
them each a third time, if a majority of the house be in favor of that 
proceeding. Let it not be said that southern men may be taken by 
surprise, if the proceeding here respectfully recommended be adopted. 
If the friends of Arkansas are sufficiently numerous to carry now the 
motion to postpone, they can arrest at any time the action of the house 
on the Michigan bill, until clear, indubitable indications have been given 
that the Missouri compromise is not to be disregarded." 

Mr. Wise having modified his motion by moving to refer both bills 
with instructions to incorporate them into one bill, Mr. Patton and Mr. 
Bouldin, both of Virginia, opposed that part of this motion which 
instructed the committee to unite the bills. Mr. B. said he had implicit 
confidence in the members from the non-slaveholding states, " that no 
serious difficulty would be made as to the admission of Arkansas in 
regard to negro slavery." Mr. Lewis, of North Carolina, was in favor 
of giving precedence to the Arkansas bill, considering it the weaker of 
the two. The people of the south, he said, wanted a hostage to protect 
them on this delicate question ; and the eficct of giving precedence to 
the Michigan bill would deprive them of that hostage. 

Mr. Gushing, of Massachusetts, protested against the admission of 
Arkansas with the clause in her constitution prohibiting the legislature 
from passing laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of 
the owners. He concurred with his constituents in condemning the 
clause " as anti-republican, as wrong on general principles of civil 
polity, and as unjust to the inhabitants of the non-slaveholding states." 
The legislature could not emancipate, even if it should be ready to 
indemnify fully their owners. It was " to foreclose, in advance, the 
progress of civilization and of liberty forever." He had been asked if 
he would violate the compromise under which Missouri had entered the 
union. He said Massachusetts had never assented to that compromise. 
Most of her representatives had voted against it ; and those who had 
voted for it had been disavowed and denounced at home, and stigma- 
tized even here, by a southern member, as over-compliant toward the 
exactingness of the south. He concluded a long speech with a severe 
and eloquent reply to a threat of Mr. Wise, that, if, contrary to the 
terms of the Missouri compromise, the north should impose restrictions 
affecting slave property at the south, the latter would be impelled " to 
introduce slavery into the heart of the northy 

The questions raised in the senate as to the right of admission with, 
out a previous assent of congress to the formation of a constitution, and 
to the right of unnaturalized aliens to vote ; as also the right of Ark- 



660 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ansas to be admitted by virtue of the provisions of the treaty cedicg 
Louisiana, were severally discussed in committee of the whole. Mr. 
Hamer, of Ohio, contended that congress could, by one act, allow the 
prayer of the petitioners to become a state, and approve their coostitu- 
tion. He advocated the right of aliens to vote. The right of suffrage 
was not inseparably connected with that of citizenship. Congress alone 
could make an American citizen who should be entitled to the rights 
of citizenship throughout the union ; but control over the right of suf- 
frage belonged to the state. 

In relation to the right of Arkansas to admission pursuant to the 
treaty of cession, Mr. Adams said she had a right to come into the 
union, with her slaves and her slave laws. It was written in the bond, 
and however he might lament that it ever had been so written, he must 
faithfully perform its obligations. He was content to receive her as 
one of the slaveholding states ; but he was unwilling that congress, in 
accepting her constitution, should even lie under the imputation of 
assenting to an article in the constitution of a state which withheld 
from its legislature the power of giving freedom to the slave. The 
house having been twenty hours in continuous session, Mr. Adams said 
his physical strength was too much exhausted to enlarge on that topic. 
When the bill should be reported to the house, he might again ask to 
be heard, upon renewing there, as he intended, the motion for that 
amendment. 

After a farther continuation of the debate, amidst considerable con- 
fusion and disorder, Mr. Adams again addressed the committee in favor 
of his amendment, which was, " that nothing in this act should be con- 
strued as an assent by congress to the article in the constitution of the 
said state in relation to slavery and the emancipation of slaves." 

Mr. Slade moved an amendment requiring the people of Arkansas, by 
a convention, to expunge from the constitution the clause prohibiting 
emancipation, which also was rejected. 

Mr. Wise was opposed to the course of the majority " in pressing the 
question upon a house, sleepy, tired, and drunk." Being opposed to 
the motion that the committee report the bills to the house, he said he 
would speak till 10 o'clock, when the house would be compelled to drop 
the subject, as it was not the special order for that day. He accord- 
ingly continued his speech until that hour, having several times given 
way to motions that the committee rise, which were lost. The question 
now arose, whether the committee were obliged to rise in order to take 
up the special order. After some discussion, aud the reading of the 
rules, the motion to rise was negatived. Mr. Wise then resumed Lis 
remarks, aud concluded at a little after 1 1 o'clock. 



RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS. 661 

Mr. M'Kenuan, of Penusylvauia, having obtained the floor, said, the 
members were evidently worn out by this protracted sitting, (twenty- 
five hours;) many had not slept, and others had not broken their fast. 
"\Ye have, ixid he, fought the bill manfully, and done our best to stave 
off the decision upon it. My friend from Virginia, especially, ha? 
fought it hard and long, and has, in fact, verified the old adage, a leap 
dog for a long chase. I hope, sir, the committee will rise and report 
the bills, and that we shall adjourn over until to-morrow. His motion 
to that effect was carried. 

Subsequently, (June 13,) in the house, Mr. Adams offered an amend- 
ment to the Michigan bill, reserving to that state the rights and limits 
secured to the territory by the ordinance of 1787, which, he contended, 
settled the boundaries of the slates of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, with 
that of the territories north of those states, definitively and forever : 
and the boundaries could not be altered without the consent of congress, 
the states and territories interested, and Virginia (the state which ceded 
that portion of territory). The bill before the house altered the boun- 
daries between Ohio and Michigan, to the injury of the latter, and in 
violation of the original compact. The amendment was lost. 

The Michigan bill was ordered to a third reading by 153 yeas, to 45 
nays. Of the minority, fifteen were from slave states, chiefly IMaryland, 
Virginia, and Kentucky. On ordering the Arkansas bill to a third 
reading, the vote was, 143 to 50. Of the negatives, two only were from 
slave states ; Underwood, of Kentucky, and Lewis Williams, of North 
Carolina ; both of whom voted also against the Michigan bill. Mr. 
Adams, also, voted against both. Much of the opposition to these bills 
was designed to postpone the admission of the new states, rather than to 
reject them. After the presidential election of that year, a still smaller 
negative vote would have been given. 

In the spring of 1836, the question of the independence of Texas was 
agitated in congress. Emigation from the United States to that country 
had been going on for several years, until the population amounted to 
upwards of 50,000, a majority of which was from the United States. 
Most or all of the states had contributed to this population, but much 
the larger portion was from the south-western states. A revolution had 
been for some time in progress ; and independence had been declared in 
March, 1836, about the time of the horrid massacres at Alamo and 
Goliad, when the entire opposing forces of the Texans had been slaugh 
tered in cold blood. 

In May, intelligence reached Washington of the victory at San 
Jacinto of the Texans under Gen. Houston over the Mexicans. A strong 
iiyiupathyin behalf of the Texans, which had for some time been spread- 



662 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ing througli the union, was now extenaively expressed in petitions to con- 
gress for a recognition of the independence of Texas ; an act to which 
congress was already strongly predisposed. 

Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, moved the reference of the memorials and 
petitions on the subject to the committee on foreign relations, saying that 
if the accounts from Texas were official, he would have moved for the 
immediate recognition of her independence. 

Mr. Webster thought it the duty of our government to acknowledge 
the independence of Texas, if it had a government de facto. But the 
time and manner of doing so were matters proper for grave and mature 
consideration ; and it would not be best to act with precipitation. If 
the information received was true, they would hear from Texas herself ; 
for as soon as she felt that she was a country, and had a government, she 
would naturally present her claims for recognition. It might not be 
necessary to wait for that event ; but he thought it discreet to do so. 
He would be one of the first to acknowledge the independence of Texas 
on reasonable proof that she had established a government. Attempts 
might be made by some European government to obtain a cession of Texas 
from Mexico. 

Mr. King, of Alabama, thought it did not become wise and pi-udent 
men, bound to preserve the honor and faith of the country, to be hurried 
along by the effervescence of feeling, and to abandon our established 
course toward foreign powers. We had uniformly recognized the exist- 
ing governments, without stopping to inquire whether they were despotic 
or constitutional. Having satisfied ourselves that a government exists, 
we look no further, but recognize it as it is. 

Mr. Calhoun took ultra ground, advocating both immediate recogni- 
tion, and immediate admission into the union, and hoping it would be 
done at the pi-esent session. He mentioned as " powerful reasons" for 
admission, that " the southern states, owning a slave population, were 
deeply interested in preventing that country from having the power to 
annoy them ; and the navigating and manufacturing interests of the north 
and east were equally interested in making it a part of the union." 

Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, thought our national character worth 
more than all Mexican territory or wealth ; and it behooved us to act 
with wisdom and circumspection. The sacred obligations of justice and 
good faith, formed the indispensable basis of a nation's character, great- 
ness, and freedom, and without which, no people could long presorve the 
blessings of self-government. 

Mr. Rives counseled " moderation, calmness and dignity," and recom- 
mended a reference of the subject to the committee on foreign relations. 

Mr. Niles also recommcAded caution. We should regard our national 



RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS. 663 

faith. A precipitate acknowledgment of the independence of Texas 
might expose our government to a suspicion of having encouraged the 
enterprises of oir citizens who had volunteered in aiding the Texans. 
And this suspicijn would be greatly strengthened by our following the 
recognition by annexation. 

The memorials were referred. The committee consisted of Messrs. 
Clay, King, of G-eorgia, Tallmadge, Mangum and Porter. On the 18th 
of June, the committee reported a resolution in favor of acknowledging 
the independence of Texas, " whenever satisfactory information should 
be received that it had in successful operation a civil government, capa- 
ble of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of an inde- 
pendent power." 

Mr. Southard, who seemed indisposed to encourage Mr. Calhoun's 
idea of annexation with the view of maintaining " the balance of power, 
and the perpetuation of our institutions," having reference, doubtless, to 
the increase of the political power of slavery, wished it understood, that 
his vote would relate to the independence of Texas, not to its admission. 
The contemplated recognition might at the proper time be justified ; the 
latter might be found to be opposed by the highest and strongest con- 
siderations of interest and duty. He would then discuss neither ; nor 
was he willing that the remarks of the senator should lead, in or out of 
that chamber, to the inference that all who voted for the resolution con- 
curred with him in opinion. 

Mr. Benton advocated a continuance of our established policy of strict 
neutrality. Mexico was our nearest neighbor, dividing with us the con- 
tinent of North America, and possessing the elements of a great power. 
Our boundaries were co-terminous for two thousand miles. We had 
inland and maritime commerce. She had mines ; we had ships. Upon 
each were imposed the duties of reciprocal friendship. Merchandise was 
carried from New Orleans to Mexican ports, from which the return was 
in the precious metals. Of the ten millions and three-quarters of silver 
coin and bullion received from abroad the last year, eight millions and 
one-quarter came from Mexico alone. She had thus far no cause of 
complaint ; nox did the present motion depart from our neutral course, 
as a recognition was made contingent upon the de facto independence of 
Texas. A separation between Texas and Mexico was certain to take 
place. They had no affinities. The rich and deep cotton and sugar 
lauds of Texas presented no attractions to the mining and pastoral popu- 
lation of Mexico. Within a few years the settlement of this planting 
region had been begun by another race. Sooner or later a separation 
would be inevitable. Mr. B denied the assertion elsewhere made, that 
this was a war for the extension of slavery. The settlers in Texas had 



064 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

gone to live under a government similar to that which they had left 
behind. The government had been changed, and attempts had been 
made to reduce the people to unconditional submission. The revolt 
was just in its origin ; it had illustrated the Anglo-Saxon character, and 
given it new titles to the respect and admiration of the world. 

The resolution reported by the committee was adopted unanimously ; 
yeas, 39. A similar resolution was reported in the house by the com- 
mittee on foreign relations and adopted: yeas, 113; nays, 22. The 
nays were all or nearly all given by the opponents of the administration. 
All but oue — Mr. Milligan, of Delaware — were from free states. It has 
been stated as remarkable, that Mr. Adams, who, when a member of Mr. 
Monroe's cabinet, was against the relinquishment of Texas to Spain in 
the treaty of 1 819, by which Florida was acquired, was, in 1836 and 1844, 
against its recovery ; and that Mr. Calhoun, a member of the same cabinet, 
was in favor of its alienation, and subsequently in favor of its recovery. 
Their opposite positions in relation to its acquisition, were attributable to 
their different opinions as to the policy of annexing slave territory to the 
union. 

At the next session of congress, (December 21, 1836,) president Jack- 
son, in a special message, advised congress not to recognize the inde- 
pendence of Texas, until her ability to protect herself should be 
established, and there should be no longer any danger of her being again 
subjected, as had been our policy in the cases of Mexico and the South 
American states. Since the capture of Santa Anna, the Mexican re- 
public, under another executive, was rallying its forces under a new 
leader, and menacing a fresh invasion to recover its lost dominion. 
Several circumstances, he said, required us to act with unwonted caution. 
Many of our citizens would be anxious for a reunion of that territory to 
this country. Most of its inhabitants were bound to our citizens by the 
ties of friendship and kindred blood. They had instituted a govern- 
ment similar to our own. They had, moreover, resolved, on the recog- 
nition by us of their independence, to seek for admission into the union. 
They would also ask us to acknowledge their title to the territory, with 
the avowed design to treat of its transfer to the United States. A too 
early movement might subject us to the imputation of seeking to estab- 
lish the claims of our neighbors to a territory with a view to its subse- 
quent acquisition by ourselves. 

Notwithstanding this caution of the president against a premature 
acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, the senate, on the 1st 
of March, adopted a resolution declaring the acknowledgment expedient 
and proper, 23 to 19. In the house a similar resolution was laid on the 
table, 98 to 86. Subsequently, however, the bill making appropriations 



CLAIMS AGAINST MEXICO. 665 

for civil and diplomatic expenses, \vas so amended ag to provide a " salary 
and outfit of a diplomatic agent to be sent to the government of Texas, 
whenever the president should receive satisfactory evidence that Texas 
was an independent power, and that it was expedient to appoint such a 
minister." Yeas, 171 ; nays, 76. 

Apprehensions were about this time entertained of an interruption of 
the amicable relations between the United States and Mexico. A treaty 
of amity, commerce and navigation had been concluded between the two 
reoublics, the 5th of April, 1831. Since that time numerous injuries 
had been committed upon the persons and property of Our citizens, and 
insults had been offered to our flag ; and our demands for satisfaction 
and redress had proved unavailing. One of the causes of the delay, it 
was presumed, was the distracted condition of the internal affairs of that 
country. To this cause had recently been added the aid afforded by 
citizens of the United States to the revolution in Texas, with the sup- 
posed connivance or encouragement of the government. 

On the 7th of February, 1837, the president called the attention of 
congress to the subject, by a special message, in which he stated, that the 
numerous injuries above mentioned, " independent of recent insults to 
this government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican minister," 
(who had suddenly taken his departure,) " would justify, in the eyes of 
all nations, immediate war." He said, however, " considering the pre- 
sent embarrassed condition of that country, we should act with both 
wisdom and moderation, by giving to Mexico one more opportunity to 
atone for the past, before we take redress into our own hands." And he 
recommended an act authorizing reprisals and the use of the naval force 
by the executive against Mexico, if she should refuse to come to an 
amicable adjustment of the matters in controversy upon another demand 
made from on board one of our vessels of war on the coast of Mexico. 

The message was referred in both houses to the committees on foreign 
relations. Neither committee reported in favor of the act asked for by 
the president, but both reported resolutions in favor of another demand 
for a redress of grievances before coercive measures were adopted. The 
senate committee considered it contrary to a provision of the treaty with 
Mexico, that " neither of the contracting parties will order or authorize 
any acts of reprisal, nor declare war against the other, on complaint of 
injuries or damages, until the party considering itself offended shall 
first have presented to the other a statement of such injuries or damages, 
verified by competent proofs, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and 
the same shall have been either refused or unreasonably delayed." The 
presidential term of Gen. Jackson closing with the expiration of this 
session, the prosecution cf our claims against Mexico devolved upon 
Mr. Van Buren. 



666 THE JVMERICAN STATESMAN. 



CHAPTER LIV. 

SPECIE CIRCULAR — XEETING OF CONGRESS. RESOLUTION 10 RESCIND 

THE CIRCULAR. — VETO. BENTOn's EXPUNGING RESOLUTION. PRESI- 
DENTIAL ELECTION. 

Several orders were this year (1836) issued from the treasury 
department to the receivers and disbursers of the public moneys and 
to the deposit banks, in relation to the receipt and payment of specie. 
The first of these orders, dated 22d February, 1836, was intended to 
diminish the circulation of small bank notes, and to substitute specie, 
especially gold, for such notes. The receipt of bank notes of a denomi- 
nation less than five dollars had been prohibited after the 30th of Sep- 
tember, 1835; and the present order prohibited their payment to any 
public officer or creditor. And unless otherwise prescribed by law, no 
such notes of a less denomination than ten dollars were to be received 
or paid after the 4th of July next. And the deposit banks were required, 
in the payment of all demands not exceeding five hundred dollars, to 
pay one-fifth in gold coin, if it should be preferred by the creditor. And 
they were requested not to issue, after the 4th of July, notes less than 
five dollars, nor after the 3rd of March, 1837, any less than ten dollars. 
The alleged object of this regulation was, "to render the currency of 
the country more safe, sound and uniform." 

This order was followed, on the 11th of July, 1836, by another, the 
famed " specie circular," which produced a more intense sensation, 
probably, than any other political event since the removal of the deposits. 
In anticipation of the winding up of the business of the bank of the 
United States, and notwithstanding the efforts of the administration to 
discourage the issue and circulation of paper money, an unprecedented 
increase of the number of state banks took place. For the 35 millions 
of bank capital withdrawn from use by the expiration of the national 
bank, state bank capital was created to several times that amount. The 
facility of obtaining bank accommodations encouraged speculations of all 
kinds to an extent never before known, especially in landed property. 
The annual receipts from sales of the public lands, had risen within a 
few years from less than four millions to three and four times that 
amount ! These lands were paid for with this paper money, issued 
mostly by banks in distant states, and therefore not likely soon to return 
for redemption. 

To prevent the monopoly ot the public lands by speculators, and to 



SPECIE CIRCULAR. MEETING OF CONGRESS Go 7 

check this rapid accumulation in the treasury of paper money, niueli of 
which, it was apprehended, would prove inconvertible, this order was 
issued. In cases of sales, except to actual settlers, or residents of the 
state, and in quantities not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres, 
payment for lands sold after the 15th of August, was to be made in 
specie; and after the 15th of December, in gold and silver, without 
exception. This order was issued under an existing law, by which the 
secretary of the treasury was authorized to receive or to reject bank 
paper, at his discretion. Whether ultimately detrimental to the pros- 
perity of the country or not, its immediate effect was a serious revulsion. 

At the preceding session of congress, Mr. Benton had submitted a 
resolution proposing the exclusion of all paper money in payment for 
public lands ; but his proposition met with little favor. His opinion 
of the effects of the measure was thus expressed : " Upon the federal 
government, its effect would be to check the unnatural sale of the 
public lands to speculators for paper; it would limit the sales to set- 
tlers and cultivators; stop the swelling increases of paper surpluses 
in the treasury; put an end to all projects for disposing of surpluses; 
and relieve all anxiety for the fate of the public moneys in the deposit 
banks. Upon the new states, where the public lauds are situated, its 
effects would be most auspicious. It would stop the flood of paper witj 
which they are inundated, and bring in a steady stream of gold and sit 
ver in its place." The settlers, too, he said, would be relieved from tht 
competition of speculators who came " with bales of bank notes bor- 
rowed upon condition of carrying them far away, and turning them loose 
where many would be lost, and never get back to the bank that issued 
them." 

The circular was issued only one week after the adjournment of con- 
gress ; having been purposely withheld, as Mr. Benton says, to avoid 
any interference of congress, a majority of both houses being known to be 
opposed to the measure. A majority of the cabinet also were opposed to it. 

The 2d session of the 24th congress commenced on the 5th day of 
December, 1836. Being a short session, and the last under the admin- 
istration of Gen. Jackson, few acts of importance were passed. 

The president, in his message, expressed his disapprobation of the 
deposit act of the last session, which had " received a reluctant approval." 
He spoke at length against the distribution principle, and the act in par- 
ticular. A prominent objection to it was the rule of apportionment 
which it had adopted, which was unequal and unjust.' Instead of a dis- 
tribution in proportion to the population of each state, the rule pre- 
scribed by the constitution for the apportionment of representatives 
and direct taxc^^ the money wa? h be divided among the states accord- 



668 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ing to their federal representation, both senators and representatives. 
Delaware, for example, was entitled to but one representative for her 
population ; but her two senators being included in the basis for distri- 
bution, gave her more than double the amount she would receive had 
the apportionment been made according to population. He recom- 
mended the adoption of some measure to prevent the accumulation of 
a surplus making a division necessary. He acknowledged a partial 
change in his views, and gave reasons for his having recommended dis- 
tribution in 1829 and 1830. He discussed the currency question — 
favored a specie circulation, and discouraged the use of bank paper. He 
defended the " specie circular" and the destruction of the bank, as salu- 
tary measures, and pronounced the state banks fully equal to the former 
in transferring the public moneys. 

He also called attention to the bank of the Upited States, which had, 
before the expiration of the charter, obtained an act of incorporation 
from the legislature, and was now a state bank. Instead of proceeding 
to wind up its affairs, and paying over to the government the amount of 
the stock held by it, the president and directors of the old bank had 
transferred the books, papers and effects to the new corporation, which 
had entered upon business as a continuation of the old concern. 

A few days after the commencement of the session, Mr. Ewiug, of Ohio, 
introduced into the senate a joint resolution " to rescind the treasury 
order of July 11, 1836, and to prohibit the secretary of the treasury 
from directing what funds should be receivable in payment for public 
lands, and from making any discrimination in the funds so receivable, 
between different individuals, or between different branches of the pub- 
lic service ; " thus requiring the same kind of money in payment for 
customs as for lands. 

Mr. Ewing, in explaining his reasons for offering the resolution, said 
he thought other objects than those which had been avowed, were con- 
templated by the issuing of the circular. It had been foreseen before 
congress met, that some measure would be attempted to check the ac- 
cumulation of public money in the hands of the executive. When the 
distribution was brought forward, it was positively asserted, that there 
would be no surplus revenue ; but when these statements were contra- 
dicted by the rapid influx of public money, it was declared that the 
whole surplus would be rxsquired for the necessities of the country. 
And the secretary of the treasury had, in his report of December, 
under-estimated the probable amount in the treasury the 1st of January 
thereafter, by many millions — an error so gross as scarcely to be attri- 
liutable to inadvertence. When other expedients had failed, only seven 
days after the adjournment of congress, the order was issued, thus cbaug- 



RESOLaXlON TO RESCIND THE CIRCULAR. 669 

ing, without the advice of congress, the character of the funds to be 
derived from one of the greatest sources of revenue. 

The people had been told that the evils they suflFered were attribut- 
able to the distribution bill. But they well understood the true source 
of the evil to be the treasury circular. One object of those who advised 
the act, was to limit the sales of the public lands and raise their prices ; 
and the order had effected the object, and benefited the speculators, and 
the deposit banks from which they had borrowed the money. Another 
object of the order was to save the deposit banks from failure. It had 
been said by senators that the distribution bill would break many of 
these bauke. This order was therefore intended to collect specie in the 
land-ofiices, to be distributed among these banks to enable them to pay 
over the money to the states. It had been said the order would pre- 
vent the over issues of banks. To this he replied, that there had been 
no over issues except by the deposit banks; and these would not 
be affected by the order, but would be relieved by the aid of this specie 
from the effect of their improvident loans. The increase of the issues 
of the western banks which had taken place within the last few years, 
was no greater than the increasing commerce of the country had de- 
manded. When the order was issued, the banks were compelled to stop 
their loans, and push their creditors, and thus the whole commerce of 
the west had been crippled. 

Mr. Benton, in reply, said in reference to the surplus remaining in 
the treasury, that fifteen or sixteen millions of it were already appropri 
ated, but had been kept there because the appropriations at the last 
session had been so long delayed as not to leave time for the money to 
be expended. If the appropriations had been made in time, there would 
have been no greater surplus than often before. The existing surplus 
had been created by congress itself He regarded the present movement 
against the circular as being dictated by the same motives as that of 
1833 against the removal of the deposits. This, however, was but an 
impotent affair compared to that. "Then," said Mr. B., "we had a 
magnificent panic ; now, nothing but a miserable starveling ! .... a 
mere church-mouse concern — a sort of dwarfish, impish imitation of the 
gigantic spectre which stalked through the land in 1833." 

Mr. B. referred to a letter from Mr. Biddle, and a late speech of Mr. 
Clay in Lexington, in relation to the treasury order, in which they had 
" given out the programme for the institution of the little panic ; and 
the proceeding against the president for violating the laws; and against 
the treasury order itself as the cause of the new distress." Such was 
the construction which he gave to the letter and the speech of these 
gentlemen. Considering the existing state of things as chargeable to 



670 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tho bank and its friends, and designed to aid them in getting a renewal 
of its charter as a remedy for the evils which they had themselves 
created, he said : " There is no safety for the federal revenues but in 
the total exclusion of local paper, and that from every branch of the 
revenue — customs, lands, and post-ofl5ce. There is no safety for the 
national finances but in the constitutional medium of gold and silver. 
After forty years of wandering in the wilderness of paper money, we 
have approached the confines of the constitutional medium. Seventy-five 
millions of specie in the country, with the prospect of an annual increase 
of ten or twelve millions for the next four years ; three branch mints to 
commence nest spring, and the complete restoration of the gold currency, 
announce the success of president Jackson's great measures for the reform 
of the ctirrency, and vindicate the constitution from the libel of having pre- 
scribed an impracticable currency. The success is complete; and there 
is no way to thwart it, but to pull down the treasury order, and to reopen 
the public lands to the inundation of paper money. Of this, it is not to 
be dissembled, there is great danger. Four deeply interested classes are 
at work to do it — speculators, local banks. United States bank, and poli- 
ticians out of power. They may succeed : but I will not despair. The 
darkest hour of night is just before the break of day; and through the 
gloom ahead, I see the bright vision of the constitutional currency erect, 
radiant and victorious. If reform measures go on, gold and silver will 
be gradually and temperately restored ; if reforms are stopped, then the 
paper runs riot, and explodes from its own expansion." 

Mr. Crittenden admitted that the deposit banks had been strengthened 
by the order, as had been asserted by Mr. Benton, but it was at the ex- 
pense of all the other banks in the country. The specie was collected 
and carried into the vaults of the former, and went to disturb and em- 
barrass the general circulation of the country, and to produce the pecu- 
niary difficulty felt in all quarters of the union. The distress was at 
least, through the west, attributed to that cause. The senator from 
Missouri supposed the order had produced no part of the pressure. If 
not, what had it produced ? Had it increased the specie in actual and 
general circulation ? If it had done no evil, what good had it done ? 
So far as it Lad operated at all, it had been to derange the state of the 
currency, and to give it a direction inverse to the course of business. 
Our great commercial cities were the natural repositories where money 
centered and settled. There it was wanted, and was more valuable, than 
in ih.c interior. Any intelligent business man in the west would rather 
have money paid him for a debt in Now York, than at his own door. 
Hence, forcing the specie against the natural course of business from 
east to west was beneficial to none, injurious to all. This course, he 



RESOLUTION TO RESCIND TUE CIRCULAR. 671 

said, miglit be disturbed for a time, but it was like forcing the needle 
from the pole: turn it round and round as often as you pleased, if left 
to itself, it would still settle at the north. Men might as well escape 
from the physical necessities of their nature as from the laws which gov- 
erned the movements of finance ; and the man who professed to reverse 
or dispense with the one was no greater quack than he who made the 
same professions with regard to the other. The distribution bill had 
been charged with the mischief; and he admitted that the manner in 
which the government was attempting to carry that law into effect, might 
in part have furnished grounds for such a supposition ; and he had no 
doubt that it had aggravated the pecuniary distress of the country. 

Mr. Webster regarded the principles of Mr. Benton respecting cur- 
rency as ultra and impracticable ; looking to a state of things not desira- 
ble in itself, even if it were practicable ; and if it were desirable, as 
being beyond the power of the government to bring about. The • ques- 
tion was now raised, whether these principles were to prevail against 
those which had long been established in this country ; and it would 
soon be decided, so far as the senate was concerned. A new adminis- 
tration was about to come in. While it receives the power and patron- 
age of the past, would it inherit also its topics and projects ? Would 
it keep up the avowal of the same objects and schemes, especially in 
regard to the currency ? The order was prospective, and, on the face of 
it, perpetual. Was it to be the rule under the ensuing administration ? 
The country was interested in these questions. 

It was remarkable, said Mr. W., that frauds, speculation and monopoly 
should have become so enormous and notorious on the II th of July, as 
to demand executive interference, and yet not have reached such a height 
as to make it proper to lay the subject before congress, which had ad- 
journed only seven days before. And what made it more remarkable 
was, that the president had, in his annual message, spoken of the rapid 
sales of the public lands as one of the most gratifying proofs of general 
prosperity, having reached " the unexpected sum of eleven millions." 
How so different a view of things happened to be taken at the two 
periods, might perhaps be learned in the farther progress of this debate. 

The order, he said, spoke of the " evil influence" likely to result from 
the further exchange of the public lands, for " paper money " This was 
the language of the gentleman from Missouri, who habitually spoke of 
the notes of all banks, however solvent, and however promptly they re- 
deemed their notes in gold and silver, as " paper money." The secre- 
tary had adopted the gentleman's phrases, which, as financial language, 
were quite new. By paper money in its obnoxious sense, he (Mr. W.) 
understood paper issues on credit alone, without capital, resting only on 



672 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the good faith and ability of those who issue it, as was the paper money 
of revolutionary times, and as may have been the character of the paper 
of particular institutions since. But the notes of banks of competent 
capitals and duly restricted, made payable on demand in gold and silver, 
and so paid, were paper money only in this sense, that they were made 
of paper, and circulated as money, If this language of the order was 
authentic, and all notes were to be hereafter regarded and stigmatized as 
mere " paper money," the sooner the country knew it, the better. 

After a farther discussion of the subject, it was referred to the com- 
mittee on public lands ; and on the 18th of January, 1837, Mr. Walker, 
from that committee, made a report, accompanied by a bill, providing 
that the government should receive the paper of such banks only as 
should thereafter issue no notes less than five dollars, and after the 30th 
of December, 1839, none less than ten dollars, and as should pay their 
notes on demand in gold and silver. They were also ref{uired, under 
the control of the secretary, to pass the paper thus received to the credit 
of the United States as cash. The provisions of the bill extended to the 
receipt of money for duties, taxes, and debts. It was subsequently 
amended, on motion of Mr. Rives, so as to restrict these banks to the 
issue, after 1841, of notes not less than twenty dollars ; and on motion of 
Mr. Clay so as to rescind the treasury order. In this shape it passed the sen- 
ate : ayes, 41 ; noes, 5 — Messrs. Benton, Linn, Morris, Buggies, Wright. 

Mr. Calhoun declined voting, assigning as a reason, that this measure 
could not arrest the downward course of the country. It was doubtful 
whether any skill and wisdom could restore the currency to soundness. 
An explosion he considered inevitable, and so much greater, the longer 
it should be delayed. Being unprepared to assign his reasons for the 
vote he might give, he was unwilling to vote at all. 

The bill passed the house also by a large majority : the vote on its 
engrossment for a third reading, was, ayes, 143; noes, 59. Its passage 
was on the 2d of March, the day before that which terminated the con- 
stitutional term of congress and of the administration. It was sent to 
the president, who returned it to the senate, with the objection, that its 
provisions were " so complex and uncertain, that he deemed it necessary 
to obtain the opinion of the attorney-general on several important ques- 
tions touching its construction and effect. That ofl&cer concurring with 
him that its construction would be " a subject of much perplexity and 
doubt," he did " not think it proper to approve a bill so liable to a 
diverslt}^ of interpretations." 

A bill was also passed by the senate, " to prohibit the sales of public' 
lands, except to actual settlers, and in limited quantities," 27 to 23 ; but 
in the house, it was, on the 2d of March, laid on the table, 107 to 91, 



Benton's expunging resol-dtion. 673 

The purpose of Mr. Benton, announced on the passage of the resolu- 
tion of the 28th of March, 1834, condemning the exercise of power by 
the president in relation to the removal of the deposits, had been faith- 
fully carried out, hy his moving, at each succeeding session, to expunge 
that resolution from the journal of the senate. That motion was made 
at this session for the last time. The changes which had taken 
place in that body in consequence of resignations and of the expira- 
tion of terms of senators since 1834, had given to the administra- 
tion party the predominance ; and nothing but unanimity was neces- 
sary to effect the long meditated object of the mover. 

The resolution was debated on Friday and Saturday, the J 3th and 
14th of January, 1837. Contemplating final action on the subject on 
Monday, a meeting of the democratic senators was held on Saturday, to 
consult on the manner in which the act should be performed. In order 
to secure the necessary unanimity, the obliteration of the resolution, Mr. 
Benton's favorite mode, was given up ; and that proposed by the legisla- 
ture of Virginia adopted ; which was, to draw black lines around the 
obnoxious resolution. To this Mr. B. assented, as he tells us, " on con- 
dition of being allowed to compose the epitaph," to be written across the 
enclosed lines : " Expunged by the order of the senate." 

Mr. Benton thus continues his account of the proceedings of the meet- 
ing, which, he says, was held in the night at a famous restaurant, giving to 
the assemblage the air of a convivial entertainment : " The agreement 
which led to victory was then adopted, each one severally pledging him- 
self to it, that there should be no adjournment of the senate, after the 
resolution was called, until it was passed; and that it should be called 
immediately after tlie morning business of the Monday ensuing. Ex- 
pecting a protracted session, extending through the day and night, and 
knowing the difficulty of keeping men steady to their work and in good 
humor, when tired and hungry, the mover of the proceeding took care to 
provide, as far as possible, against such a state of things ; and gaA'e 
orders that night to have an ample supply of cold hams, turkeys, rounds 
of beef, pickles, wines, and cups of hot coffee, ready in a certain commit- 
tee room near the senate chamber by four o'clock, on the afternoon of 
Monday." 

The subject was called up pursuant to arrangement ; and the debate 
was renewed : a debate less distinguished, perhaps, as a discussion of con- 
stitutional and political principles, than for the indications which it gave 
of a reverse of feeling of parties in that body. The author and supporters 
of the condemnatory resolution of 1834, were about to witness a morti- 
fying exhibition— -to receive in turn an infliction similar to that which 
they had dealt out to their opponents a few short years before. Tho 

43 



674 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Bpeeches of the subdued senators furnish a pretty clear index to their 
feelings on that occasion. 

Mr. Calhoun said : " No one, not blinded by party zeal, can possibly 
be insensible that the measure proposed is a violation of the constitution. 
The constitution requires the senate to keep a journal ; this resolution goes 
to expunge the journal. If you may expunge a part, you may expunge 
the whole ; and if it is expunged, how is it kept ? * # * This is to 
be done, not in consequence of argument, but in spite of argument. I 
know perfectly well the gentlemen have no liberty to vote otherwise." 
[Mr. Calhoun here alluded to the instructions which some senators had 
received from their state legislatures.] " They try, indeed, to comfort 
their conscience by saying that it is the will of the people. It is no 
such thing. We all know how these legislative returns have been ob- 
tained. It is by dictation from the White House. The president himself, 
with that vast mass of patronage which he wields, and the thousand ex- 
pectations he is able to hold up, has obtained the votes of the state 
legislatures ; and this, forsooth, is said to be the voice of the people. 
The voice of the people ! Sir, can we forget the scene which waa 
exhibited in this chamber when that expunging resolution was first 
introduced here ? Have we forgotten the universal giving way of con- 
science, so that the senator from Missouri was left alone ? I see before 
me senators who could not swallow that resolution ; and has its nature 
changed since then ? Is it any more constitutional now than it was 
then ? Not at alh But executive power has interposed. Talk to me 
of the voice of the people ! No, sir ; it is the combination of patron- 
age and power to coerce this body into a gross and palpable violation of 
the constitution. * * • 

"But why do I waste my breath? I know it is all utterly vain. 
The day is gone ; night approaches, and night is suitable to the dark 
deed we meditate." Mr. C. said other violations had been committed; 
but they had been done in the heat of party. In these, power had been 
" compelled to support itself by seizing upon new instruments of influ- 
ence and patronage ;" among these was the removal of the deposits, 
which gave to the president ample means of " rewarding his friends and 
punishing his enemies." Said Mr. C, " Something may, perhaps, be 
pardoned to him in this matter, on the old apology of tyrants — the plea 
of necessity. Here no necessity can so much as be pretended. This 
act originates in pure, personal idolatry. It is the melancholy evidence 
of a broken spirit, ready to bow at the feet of power. The former act 
was such a one as might have been perpetrated in the days of Pompey 
or Coesar ; but an act like this could never have been consummated by 
a Roman senate until the times of Caligula and Nero." 



beni'on's expunging resolution. 67^ 

Mr. Clay expressed his disappointment at the intention of again put- 
ting this resolution to a vote. He said : " It is, however, now revived; 
and sundry changes having taken place in the members of this body, it 
would seem that the present design is to bring the resolution to an abso- 
lute conclusion." He concluded his speech with a violent denunciation 
of the president and his friends, thus : " The decree has gone forth. 
The deed is to be done — that foul deed which, like the blood-stained 
hands of the guilty Macbeth, all ocean's waters will never wash out. 
Proceed, then, with the noble work which lies before you, and, like other 
skillful executioners, do it quickly. And when you have perpetrated it, 
go home to the people, and tell them what glorious honors you have 
achieved for them and the country. Tell them that you have extin- 
guished one of the brightest and purest lights that ever burnt at the 
altar of civil liberty. Tell them that you have silenced one of the 
noblest batteries that ever thundered in defense of the constitution, and 
bravely spiked the cannon. Tell them that, henceforward, no matter 
what daring or outrageous act any president may perform, you have 
forever hermetically sealed the mouth of the senate. Tell them that he 
may fearlessly assume what, powers he pleases, snatch from its lawful 
custody the public purse, command a military detachment to enter the 
halls of the capitol, overawe congress, trample down the constitution, 
and raze every bulwark of freedom ; but that the senate must stand 
mute, in silent submission, and not dare to raise its opposing voice ; 
that it must wait until a house of representatives, humbled and subdued 
like itself, and a majority of it, composed of the partisans of the presi- 
dent, shall prefer articles of impeachment. Tell them, finally, that you 
have restored the glorious doctrines of passive obedience and non-resist- 
ance. And, if the people do not pour out their indignation and imprecac 
tions, I have yet to learn the character of American freemen." 

Mr. Webster, who made the concluding speech, protested against the 
intended act, as unconstitutional. " A record expunged^'' he said, " is 
not a record which is kept^ any more than a record which is destroyed 
can be a record which is preserved. The part expunged is no longer 
part of the record ; it has no longer a legal existence. It can not bo 
certified as a part of the proceeding of the senate for any proof or evi- 
dence." He protested also that they had no right to deprive him of the 
personal constitutional right of having his yea and nay recorded and 
preserved on the journal. They might as well erase the yeas and nays 
on any other, or on all other questions as on this. He expressed hid 
deep regret to see the legislatures of respectable states instructing their 
senators to vote for violating the journal of the senate. He believed 
these proceedings of states had their origin in promptings from Wash- 



676 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ingtoD ; and had been brought about by the influence and power of the 
executive branch of this government. 

" But this resolution is to pass. "We expect it. That cause which 
has been powerful enough to influence so many state legislatures, will 
show itself powerful enough, especially with such aids, to secure the 

passage of the resolution here We collect ourselves to look on, 

in silence, while a scene is exhibited which, if we did not regard it as a 
ruthless violation of a sacred instrument, would appear to us to be little 
elevated above the character of a contemptible farce." The following is 
his concluding paragraph: 

" Having made this protest, our duty is performed. We rescue our 
own names, character, and honor, from all participation in this matter ; 
and whatever the wayward character of the times, the headlong and 
plunging spirit of party devotion, or the fear or the love of power, may 
have been able to bring about elsewhere, we desire to thank God that 
they have not, as yet, overcome the love of liberty, fidelity to true re 
publican principles, and a sacred regard for the constitution, in that state 
whose soil was drenched to a mire, by the first and best blood of the 
revolution. Massachusetts, as yet, has not been conquered ; and while 
we have the honor to hold seats here as her senators, we shall never con- 
sent to a sacrifice either of her rights or our own. We shall never fail 
to oppose what we regard a plain and open violation of the constitution 
of the country ; and we should have thought ourselves wholly unworthy 
of her if we had not, with all the solemnity and earnestness in our 
power, protested against the adoption of the resolution now before the 
senate." 

It was now near midnight ; and the vote was taken in the presence of 
a crowd of spectators. There were yeas, 24; nays, 19; absent, 5. 
After the resolution had passed, the secretary of the senate, according 
to order, took the manuscript journal of the senate, and drew a square 
of broad black lines around the resolution of the 28th of March, 1834, 
and wrote across it, " Expunged by order of the senate, this 16th day 
.)f January, 1837." 

Mr. Benton, in closing his account of the transaction, says : " The 
gratification of General Jackson was extreme. He gave a grand dinner 
to the expungers (as they were called) and their wives ; and being too 
weak to sit at the table, he only met the company, placed the ' head- 
cxpunger' in his chair, and withdrew to his sick chamber. That ex- 
purgation ! it was the ' crowning mercy ' of his civil, as New Orleans 
had been of his military life !" 

At the presidential election in 1836, the electoral vote was divided 
upon five individuals. Mr. Van Buren had been nominated by a na- 



MR. VAN BUREN's INAUGURATION. 677 

tional democratic convention held in Baltimore, in Februar/, 1835, with 
Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, for vice-president. This convention 
was held, if not at the instance, yet in accordance with the previously 
expressed wishes of Gen. Jackson, who, as was well known, was desirous 
that Mr. Van Buren should be his successor. Mr. Van Buren also was 
known to be in favor of the project. No other national convention to 
nominate a candidate for president, was held. Gen. William 11. Harri- 
son was nominated by whig conventions in many of the states, and by 
the anti-masonic state convention, at Harrisburg, Pa. Francis Granger 
was nominated at most or all of these conventions for vice-president. 
Hugh L. White, senator in congress from Tennessee, and a friend of 
Gen. Jackson, was nominated in January, 1835, by the legislature of 
Alabama. He was also nominated by the people of Tennessee, in which 
nomination the delegation from that state in the house of representa- 
tives in congress concurred, with the exception of James K. Polk and 
Cave Johnson. John M'Lean, of Ohio, and Daniel Webster, of Massa- 
chusetts, had been nominated by the whig members of the legislatures 
of these states. 

Mr. Van Buren received of the electoral votes, 170; Gen. Harrison, 
73 ; Judge White, 26 ; Mr. Webster, 14 ; and Willie P. Mangum, of 
North Carolina, 11. Total, 294. For vice-president, R. M. Johnson, 144; 
Francis Granger, 77; John Tyler, 47 ; Wm. Smith, 23. Total, 294. 
There would probably have been a less scattering vote, but for the hope 
of diminishing the chances of Mr. Van Buren's success by bringing the 
election into the house of representatives. 



CHAPTER LV. 

MR. VAN buren's INAUGURATION. SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS. 

SUB-TREASURY. OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES. 

On the 4th of March, 1837, Martin Van Buren was inaugurated as 
president of the United States. The inauguration was attended with 
the display usual on such occasions. He was accompanied to the Capi- 
tol by his predecessor, General Jackson, where he delivered his inaugural 
address, and took the oath of office, administered by chief justice Taney. 

The inaugural address gave no indications of a change in the general 
policy of the government. A prominent topic of the address was the 
then agitating question of the abolition of slavery in the District of 



678 Tin: ViMEiacAN statesman. 

Columbia. He had beeu interrogated on this agitating subject before 
the election; and he then declared that, if elected, he " must go into the 
presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of every 
attempt, on the part of congress, to abolish slavery in the District of 
Columbia, against the wishes of the slaveholdiug states ; and also with 
a determination equally decided to resist the slightest interference with 
it in the states where it exists;" and said: "It now only remains to 
add, that no bill conflicting with these views can ever receive my consti- 
tutional sanction." His reserve and caution in committing himself on 
public measures, was proverbial — a trait of character familiarly denomi- 
nated by his opponents, " non-committalism." This announcement, in 
advance, therefore, of his views and intentions in relation to this sub- 
ject, was the more noticed, and was attributed by his opponents to the 
design of strengthening his popularity at the south. Such announce- 
ment was deemed the more uncalled for, as there was not the slightest 
probability of the passage of a bill like that which he had thus fore- 
doomed. It was regarded by many also as objectionable in ^principle — 
as an improper interference, on the part of the executive, with the free- 
dom of legislation. 

Mr. Van Buren's accession to the presidency occurred at an unpropi- 
tious period. The pecuniary pressure which followed the issuing of the 
specie circular, and which was already general and severe, was rapidly 
approaching its crisis. This pressure was extensively regarded as the 
natural result of a policy which he was pledged to continue. In May, 
the event for some time anticipated by many — a general bank explosion 
— took place. The banks in the city of New York, by common consent, 
suspended specie payments. The banks in other cities were compelled 
to adopt the same course. In the state of New York, the legislature 
legalized the suspension for one year. 

Among the causes to which the suspension of specie payments was 
ascribed, were the diversion of specie to the west, and the drain upon 
the banks in the Atlantic cities for exportation to Europe, to pay for 
the excessive importations of goods. Another cause of the derangement 
of the currency was supposed to be .the large loans made by the banks 
having on deposit the surplus revenue, with the expectation that it would 
remain with them until called for by the general government. Instead, 
however, of being permitted to retain these funds as a basis for the ex- 
tension of their loans, they were unexpectedly demanded for the purpose 
of distribution among the states. 

The speculation and enormous appreciation of property during the 
last two or three years, was followed by a revulsion, and a corresponding 
depreciation. Mercantile failures in the commercial cities, as Boston, 



SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS. :6?9 

New York, and New Orleaus, exceeding in number and amount, pro- 
>bably, any that ever occurred within an equal period of time, took 
place in a few months before and after the suspension. Representations 
of the vast depreciation of property, of the general prostration of busi- 
ness, were made to the president, with requests to rescind the specie 
circular, and to call an extra meeting of congress. On the 15th of 
May, a few days after the suspension in the city of New York, a pro- 
clamation was issued for convening congress on the 1st Monday in 
September. 

But for the general suspension, it is doubtful whether the president 
would have convened congress. Under the provisions of the resolutions 
of 1816, and by the act of 1836, regulating the deposits, the federal 
officers were prohibited from receiving or paying out the notes of any 
but specie-paying banks. And the deposit banks, as well as others, 
bad now suspended. Under existing laws, therefore, no collections or 
disbursements of public moneys could be made. If done at all, it must 
he done in violation of law. 

Pursuant to the proclamation, congress assembled on the 4th of Sep- 
tember, 1837. The president's message was almost exclusively devoted 
to the banks and currency, the causes of the existing difficulties, and 
their remedy. He suggested the entire disuse of banks as fiscal agenti 
of the government, the collection, safekeeping, transfer, and disburse- 
ments of the public money by officers of the government, and of th« 
employment of specie alone in its fiscal operations. It was the recom- 
mendation of the sub-treasury scheme. He believed the exclusive use 
of specie a practicable operation. Of the seventy or eighty millions in 
the country, ten millions would be sufficient for the purpose, if the 
accumulation of a large surplus revenue were prevented. The large 
increase of specie since the act of 1834, had contributed largely to the 
feasibility of the measure. The gold coinage alone had been since 
August, 1834, ten millions, which exceeded the vrholc coinage at the 
mint during the thirty-one previous years. By using specie only in 
government operations, a demand for it would be created, and its expor- 
tation prevented. 

In consequence of the great pecuniary embarrassments, there had 
been a diminished revenue from importations and the sale of public 
lands, while the appropriations had been many millions more than had 
been asked for in former estimates. To supply the deficiency in the 
treasury thus produced, the president recommended the withholding of 
the fourth and last instalment, then in the treasury, of $9,367,200, 
directed by the act of June, 1836, to be deposited with the states in 
October next. 



680 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

No measure having direct reference to the relief of the people, was 
recommended. The president hoped, however, that the adoption of the 
proposed fiscal measures would, " by their necessary operation, afford 
essential aid in the transaction of individual concerns, and thus yield 
relief to the people at large, in a form adapted to the nature of our 
government," He said : " Those who look to the action of this govern- 
ment for specific aid to the citizen to relieve embarrassments arising 
from losses by revulsions in commerce and credit, lose sight of the ends 
for which it was created." " All communities are apt to look to gov- 
ernment for too much. * * * To avoid every unnecessary inter- 
ference with the pursuits of the citizen, will result in more benefit than 
to adopt measures which could only assist limited interests, and are 
eagerly, but perhaps naturally sought for, under the pressure of tempo- 
rary circumstances." 

In conformity to the suggestions of the president, a bill was reported 
in the senate by Mr. Wright, chairman of the committee on finance. It 
was entitled, " A bill imposing additional duties as depositaries, in cer- 
tain cases, on public officers." It required all officers of the general 
government receiving public moneys, safely to keep, without loaning or 
using them, until duly ordered to transfer them or pay them out. Bonds 
for their safe-keeping were to be given ; and their accounts were to be 
submitted for examination once a year or oftener, at the discretion of 
the secretary of the treasury. The accounts of collectors of customs, 
receivers of land-offices, and treasurers of the mints, were to be returned 
to the treasury department, quarterly or oftener, at the discretion of the 
secretary. The same bill was reported to the house of representatives, 
by Mr. Cambreleng, chairman of the committee of ways and means. 
This was the bill for the establishment of the iiidependent treasury^ 
commonly called the sub-treasury. 

Several other bills for the temporary relief of the government, were 
reported, and promptly acted on by the senate : (I.) A bill to postpone 
the payment of the fourth instalment of the deposits with the states ; 
(2.) A bill to authorize the issue of treasury notes; (3.) A bill extend- 
ing the time for the payment of merchants' bonds; (4.) A bill for 
adjusting the remaining claims on the deposit banks; and (5.) A bill to 
authorize merchandise to be deposited in public stores. 

The bill to postpone payment of the deposits, after a brief debate, 
and the adoption of an amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan, providing 
that " the three instalments already paid do remain on deposit until 
directed by congress," instead of being subject to be called for by the 
secretary of the treasury, was passed, 28 to 17, and sent to the house 
for concurrence. The chief participators in the debate were Messrs, 
Wright, Rives, Webster, Buchanan, and Calhoun. 



SUB-TREASURY. 681 

Mr. "Webster made the principal speect against the bill. He regretted 
that the measures of the president and his secretary regarded only one 
object, the relief of the government. The community also needed 
relief from the evils which it suffered : these, however, were capable of 
a distinct consideration. He mentioned, first, the wants of the treasury, 
arising from the stoppage of payments, and the falling off of the revenue. 
A second and greater evil was the prostration of credit, the derangement 
of business, arising from the suspension of the local banks. A third 
evil was the want of an accredited paper medium equal to specie, having 
equal credit over all parts of the country. The secretary's report, as 
well as the message, regarded exclusively the interest of the government, 
forgetting, or passing by the people. He (Mr. W.) rejoiced at the clear 
shape which the question had at last assumed. Was there any duty 
incumbent on the government, to superintend the actual currency of the 
country ? to do anything but to regulate the gold and silver coin ? 
Might it abandon to the states and to the local banks the unrestrained 
issue of paper for circulation, without any attempt on its part to estab- 
lish a paper medium equivalent to specie, and universally accredited all 
over the country ? 

Mr. W. contended that the power to regulate commerce between the 
states carried with it, necessarily and directly, the essential element of 
commerce — the currency, the money, which constituted the life and soul 
of commerce. Paper money, in this age, was an essential element in all 
trade between the states ; it was connected with all commercial transac- 
tions : and it belonged to the general government, and not to the state 
governments, to provide for or regulate the currency between the states. 
A paper medium equivalent to coin, and of equal credit in all parts of 
the country, was an important instrument of exchange. Currency and 
exchange were united : and if the government would do its duty on the 
great subject of the currency, the mercantile and industrious classes would 
feel the benefit through all the operations of exchange. 

In remarking on the bill, he said that its object was a necessary one ; 
but he did not think it provided the best mode of relief The money 
was expected by the states ; some of them had already disposed of it in 
advance. And was it wise to add another to the causes in operation, 
disturbing the business transactions of society ? But the bill, if passed, 
would not essentially aid the treasury. The secretary himself virtually 
acknowledged it, for he says he wants other aid, and asks for an issue 
of some millions of treasury notes. He would therefore get the money 
without the bill. But what sort of notes did the secretary propose to 
issue ? Notes of small denominations, down even to twenty dollars, 
bearing n"^ interest, redeemable at no fixed period ; receivable for debts 



682 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

due the government, but not otherwise to be paid, until, at some inde- 
finite time, there should be in the treasury a surplus beyond what the 
secretaiy might think its wants required. It was plain, authentic, sta- 
tutable paper money : a new emission of old continental. If this was not 
paper money, what was it ? And who expected this ? Who expected 
that, in the fifth year of the experiment for reforming, the currency, 
and bringing it to an absolute gold and silver circulation, the treasury 
department would be found recommending to us a regular emission of 
PAPER money ? 

Mr. Wright defended the bill as a proper measure for providing for 
the payment of the public creditors. The law requiring the transfer of 
the surplus moneys from the treasury to the states, provided for its safe- 
keeping, and that only. The time had arrived when the United States 
had no money to keep, and not enough for the necessary public expendi- 
tures. The amount in the treasury was only about $8,000,000, subject 
to draft, and that would be so reduced by payments in September, that 
not more than two-thirds of the fourth instalment could be paid. The 
question therefore was, whether the government should borrow money to 
be transferred to the states for safe-keeping. He was sensible that incon- 
venience would result from withholding the instalment. In his own 
state the matter had been so arranged, that if it was not received, it 
must be paid out of the treasury of the state. This made his situation 
delicate ; but he regarded his duty as paramount. 

The senator from Massachusetts, Mr. W. said, had remarked with 
some asperity and surprise on the recommendation of the secretary for 
issuing notes not bearing interest. The committee, differing from the 
secretary, had provided for allowing interest till there should be means 
bO redeem the notes. The senator erred, however, in regarding this as a 
new currency under the constitution. Congress, in 1815, had author- 
ized the issuing of treasury notes : those for less than $ 1 GO payable to 
bearer, without interest; but for $100 or more, payable to order, 
bearing interest at the rate of 5 2-3 per cent., or otherwise to the 
bearer without interest. The senator considered the president inconsis- 
tent in saying that he refrained from suggesting any specific plan for 
regulating the currency and exchanges, because he thought congress had 
no power to act for such a purpose ; and yet he had recommended a 
bankrupt law against corporations and other bankers. But the consti- 
tution did expressly authorize the passage of a general bankrupt law. 
He was therefore guilty of no inconsistency. 

Mr. Webster said, if the act of 1815 authorized the issuing of treasury 
notes, no circulation was ever made of them as the secretary now recom- 
mended. All treasury notes went on the ground of a temporary loan to 



SUB-TREASURY. 683 

the government, to be paid or funded as soon as the treasury would 
allow. During the late war, there was a great want of money, and a 
great disposition to use treasury notes in the payment of public creditors. 
But at such times things were done which we should be slow to do in a 
day of peace. 

Mr. Buchanan contended that congress had, in the act of 1815, done 
the very thing which Webster had said had not been done since the days 
of the confederation. He rejoiced, however, that the committee of 
finance had proposed the issue of no notes not bearing interest. He was 
in favor of this bill. He had voted for the deposit act of June, 1836, 
only as a choice of evils. On the one side, nearly forty millions, 
(besides the five millions to be reserved,) had accumulated in the deposit 
banks. By the use of this money, they were increasing the dividends of 
their stockholders, expanding extravagantly the paper circulation, and 
exciting speculation to the greatest excess. On the other hand, he had 
strong objections to making the federal government an instrument for 
collecting money that it might be deposited with the states. But the 
money being on hand, and having been collected under existing laws, he 
thought it more just, more politic, more safe, to place it in deposit with 
the states to be used for the benefit of the people, than to sufi"er it to 
remain in the banks for the benefit of their stockholders, and to the 
injury of the country. 

But the deposit law made no gift or loan to the states. It merely 
transferred the deposits from the banks to the states. The faith of the 
states was pledged for the safe-keeping of the money, and for its repay- 
ment whenever required by the secretary for defraying the expenses of 
the government. Such want has now occurred ; and it would be in the 
line of his duty to call on the states for a portion of the instalments 
already paid. But he had acted wisely in not making the demand until 
the pleasure of congress could be known. The states were not now in a 
condition to i-eturn immediately any portion of what they had already 
received. On the face of the act nothing but deposit was written ; and 
if the states expected it as a loan or gift, it was not from their solemn 
contract with the United States under this law. 

But for the unfortunate amendment made to the deposit bill by the 
house of representatives, and acq^uiesccd in by the senate, congress, Mr. 
B. said, would not have been involved in its present difficulties ; and the 
fourth instalment might be deposited with the states. The secretary 
would have received from them transferable certificates of deposit, in 
convenient sums, bearing no interest until it became necessary for him 
10 use them, but afterwards bearing an interest of five per cent., and 
redeemable at the pleasure of the states. Such certificates would now 



684 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



command a premium in the market, and be equal to gold and silver; and 
the treasury might have been replenished by their sale. 

Mr. Calhoun said he was in favor of the postponement. The object 
of the deposit law was to draw the revenue out of the grasp of the gov- 
ernment, and to restore it to those to whom it ought to be restored. 
And now when there was no surplus, it was not contrary to the purpose 
of that law to withhold it. But the responsibility would rest on gentle- 
men of the administration and those of the opposition who made last 
year the extravagant appropriations of $32,000,000, exceeding the esti- 
mate of the secretary of the treasury. The government was now bank- 
rupt. Another era had arisen. They had got through with the surplus, 
and, he trusted, they were through with extravagant appropriations. If 
they did not economize and retrench, he saw a new age commencing, 
perhaps that of treasury notes, when the compromise act would be 
annulled, the high tariff revived. But he would agree that the fourth 
deposit should be withheld, since the law had fulfilled its main purpose, 
and since a new series of extravagances was now to arise, unless they 
kept a good lookout. 

The amendment of Mr. Buchanan was then adoptedj and the bill 
passed as before stated. 

The bill authorizing the issue of treasury notes was next taken up. 

Mr. Wright moved to fill up the first blank in the bill with the word 
*' ten," making the amount to be issued ten millions ; which, he said, 
would, as he had learned from the secretary of the treasury, be about 
the amount required. 

Mr. Clay inquired if the money in the banks was to be used as bank 
notes ; or if the banks were to be compelled to pay them in specie, and 
then if these funds were to be left idle. 

Mr. Wright said they would not be used as bank notes, unless the law 
should authorize them to be so used. 

Mr. Clay said : " Then it comes to this : we have passed a bill to 
take funds out of the hands of those who would have been glad to use 
them, to put them into the hands of those who refuse to acknowledge 
and make use of them. The states would have been glad to receive 
this money in the shape of bank notes, and we have taken it from them. 
Again : government refuses to call them funds in that shape, and to 
government we have now made them over by the bill just passed ! 
And as government, though it receives those funds, and prevents their 
being paid to the states, will not acknowledge them as funds, there is 
a deficiency existing; and this deficiency is to be supplied by issuing 
treasury notes, in order that government may be able to get along. That 
is to say, government will not receive the paper of the country, and is 



OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES. 685 

about to create a paper of its own, which the country is expected to 
receive ! And thus, all the promises which have been made to us of the 
flowing of gold and silver all over the country, these promises of a bet- 
ter currency result in the issue of ten millions of paper money !" 

Mr. Calhoun addressed the senate at length. Though he was in favor 
of the bill, he made little or no direct reference to it. His speech was 
mainly directed against the connection between the government and 
banks. Having supported the bank of 18 16, and proposed its recharter 
for a short period in 1834, he gave his reasons for his course on those 
occasions, and for his present opposition to a reunion with the banks. 
He declared in 1816, that, as a new question, he would oppose the bank; 
and that he yielded to the necessity of the case, growing out of the long 
established connection between the government aud the banking system. 
So long as the government received and paid away bank notes as money, 
it was bound to regulate their value, and had no alternative but the 
establishment of a national iiank. In 1834, his object, as expressly 
avowed, in renewing it for a short period, was to use the bank to break 
the connection gradually^ in order to avert the catastrophe which had 
now happened, and which he then clearly perceived. But the connec- 
tion had been broken by operation of law; the question now was an open 
one; and he was for the first time free to choose his course. 

Mr. C. gave several reasons for a separation between the government 
and all banks ; in the course of which he mentioned the tariflfs of 1824 
and 1828, as among the causes which had led to the existing state of 
things. The high duties had filled the treasury with surpluses which 
became the source of extravagant expenditures. The banks had to dis- 
count and issue freely to enable the merchants to pay their duty bonds, 
as well as to meet the vastly increased expenditures of the government. 
The act of 1828 contributed still farther to the expansion, by turning 
the exchange with England in favor of this country. In consequence 
of the high duties, many articles formerly received in exchange for our 
exports, were excluded, and their value came back to us in gold and 
silver, to purchase similar articles at the north. This first gave that 
western direction to the precious metals, the revulsive return of which 
had been followed by so many disasters. 

His reasons against a reunion with banks were these: (1.) The con- 
nection had a pernicious influence over the bank currency. It led to the 
expansion and contraction which experience had shown to be incident to 
bank notes as a currency ; and it tended to disturb the stability and uni- 
formity of value which were essential to a sound currency. (2.) This 
connection gave a preference of one portion of citizens over another, 
which was neither fair, equal, or consistent with the spirit of our insti- 



686 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tutions The receiving and paying away their notes as cash, and the 
use of the public money, was a source of immense profit to the banks, 
(3.) We had reached a new era with regard to these institutions. The 
year 1833 marked the commencement of this era. That extraordinary 
man who had the power of imprinting his own feelings on the commu- 
nity, then commenced his hostile attacks, the effects of which would not 
terminate until there should be a separation between the government a,nd 
Ihe banks. 

But more must be done, said Mr. C, than reorganizing the treasury. 
Under the resolution of 1816, bank notes would again be received if the' 
banks should resume specie payments. The legal, as well as the actual 
connection, must be severed. To effect this without a shock, he pro- 
posed to do it gradually. He would, therefore, at the proper time, offer 
an amendment to the bill, to modify the resolution of 1816, providing 
that, after the 1st of January, 1838, three-fourths of all government 
dues might be received in the notes of specie-paying banks ; after the 
1st of January, 1839, one-half; after the 1st of January, 1840, one- 
fourth ; and after the 1st of January, 1841, nothing but specie, and such 
bills, notes, or other paper issued by authority of the government. 

He was also for adopting some remedial measure to ease off the pres- 
sure while the process was going through. The government should make 
as little demand as possible on the specie market, so as to throw no 
impediment in the way of the resumption of specie payments. In order 
to thiS; the treasury needed a paper to perform the functions of a paper 
circulation. This want would be supplied by the treasury notes, which 
ought therefore to bear no interest. 

Mr. C. said we had arrived at a remarkable era in our political history. 
The days of legislative and executive encroachments, of tariffs and sur- 
pluses, of bank and public debt, and extravagant expenditure, Avere past 
for the present ; and he would seize the opportunity thoroughly to re- 
form the government, moving off under the state rights banner in tho 
direction in which he had so long moved. He passed an eloquent eulo- 
gium upon his favorite theory of state sovereignty, concluding thus : 

" I look, sir, with pride to the wise and noble bearing of the little 
state rights party, of which it is my pride to be a member, throughout 
the eventful period through which the country has passed since 1824. 
Experience already bears testimony to their patriotism, firmness, and 
sagacity, and history will do it justice. In that year, as I have stated, 
the tariff system triumphed in the councils of the nation. We saw its 
disastrous political bearings — foresaw its surpluses and the extravagances 
to which it would lead — we rallied on the election of the late president 
to arrest it through the influence of the executive department of the 



OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES. 687 

government. In this we failed. We then fell back upon the rights and 
sovereignty of the states, and by the action of a small but gallant state, 
and through the potency of its interposition, we brought the system to 
the ground, sustained as it was by the opposition and the administration, 
and by the whole power and patronage of the government. The per- 
nicious overflow of the treasury, of which it was the parent, could not 
be arrested at once. The surplus was seized on by the executive, and by 
its control over the banks, became the fruitful source of executive in- 
fluence and encroachment. Without hesitation, we joined our old oppo- 
nents on the tariff question, but under our own flag, and without merging 
in their ranks, and made a gallant and successful war against the en- 
croachments of the executive. That terminated, we part with our allies 
in peace, and move forward, lag or onward who may, to secure the fruits 
of our long but successful struggle, under the old republican flag of '98, 
which, though tattered and torn, has never yet been lowered, and, with 
the blessing of God, never shall be with my consent." 

The bill authorizing the issue of treasury notes ; the bill for adjusting 
the remaining claims on the late deposit banks ; and the bill to extend 
the time of payment on merchants' revenue bonds, all passed the senate, 
on the 19th of September. By the last of these bills, the time of pay- 
ment of the obligations given by merchants for the payment of duties on 
goods imported, was extended nine months. 

The bill known as the sub- treasury bill, reported by Mr. Wright on 
the 14th, was taken up in the senate on the 19th, when Mr. Calhoun 
offered the amendment of which he gave notice at the time of his speech 
on the bill to authorize the issue of treasury notes ; viz., requiring the 
eventual payment in specie of all moneys due to the government, 
familiarly called, " the specie clause." This amendment was debated by 
Messrs. Niles, Benton, Walker, Calhoun, and Buchanan, in support of 
it ; and Messrs. Tallmadge, Clay, Webster, King, of G-eorgia, and Pres- 
ton, in opposition. The amendment was adopted, on 'he 2d of October : 
yeas, 24 ; nays, 23. 

Mr. Tallmadge, hitherto a firm supporter of the administration, sepa- 
rated from his friends on this question. lie deprecated this warfare 
against the whole credit system of the country. The whole body of the 
state banks did not merit the war now declared against them : the state 
bank deposit system had not failed ; and in proof of the fact, he referred 
to the assurances of the late president and the present incumbent, and 
to the reiterated declarations of the secretary of the treasury. He main- 
tained that the present crisis was only an exception to a general rule; 
and that, if the government itself had not entered into measures dea- 
tructive of public confidence, this crisis would not have occurred. It 



6SS THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

was aided also by the manner in whicli the secretary of the treasury had 
carried the deposit law into execution — making transfers of specie be- 
tween distant places so as to create a disturbance in business affairs, and 
to lead to a crippling of the banks. The sub-treasury system, if adopt- 
ed, would ruin the country. He mentioned a long list of evils which it 
would produce, and said it could not be carried into effect in New York. 

Mr. King, of Georgia, also formerly a supporter of Gen. Jackson ; 
spoke at great length against the measure. As he did not like either the 
sub-treasury or the state bank system, but wished time to digest a better, 
he moved the postponement of the whole subject to the first Monday in 
December next. 

There were other members of both houses who, like Messrs. Tallmadge 
and King, had separated from their friends of the administration party 
on financial questions, and united with the whigs, and who were called 
" conservatives." In the house, the number who dissented from the 
views of the majority on these questions, especially the sub-treasury 
scheme, was sufl&cieDt to defeat it. It was laid on the table, on the 14th 
of October, 120 to 107. Thus we see the whigs, who zealously opposed 
the removal of the deposits to the state banks, now unitedly opposing 
their removal from these same banks ; as between them and the gov- 
ernment ojBBcers, they preferred the former as depositories for the public 
moneys. And we see the administration members, with a few exceptions, 
adopting, as their favorite financial panacea, a measure which they had 
but recently regarded with the greatest disfavor. 

The several bills just mentioned as having passed the senate, together 
with that for postponing until January 1, 1839, the deposit of the fourth 
instalment of the surplus revenue, and a few other acts having been 
passed, congress adjourned, (October 16,) to the 1st Monday of Decem- 
ber ; leaving the project of the independent treasury to be reattempted 
at a more auspicious season. 

A large number of petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia, and remonstrances against the annexation of Texas, were 
received at the extra session. A resolution was proposed to be offered 
by Mr. Adams, " That the power of annexing the people of any inde- 
pendent foreign state to this union, is a power not delegated by the con- 
stitution of the United States to their congress, or to any department of 
their government, but reserved to the people." But the motion being 
decided out of order, the resolution was not received or read. 

A resolution was also offered by Mr. Wise, proposing an inquiry into 
the extraordinary delays and failures, and enormous expenditures which 
had attended the prosecution of the Seminole war in Florida. The 
question was not brought to a decision before the close of the session. 



INDEPENDENT TREASURY AGAIN DEFEATED. 689 



CHAPTER LVI. 

INDEPENDENT TREASURY AGAIN DEFEATED. TALLMADGe's SPEECH. IN- 
CIDENTAL DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN AND WEBSTER. SPECIE 

CIRCULAR REPEALED. 

The 2d session, being the first regular session of the 25th congress, 
began the 4th of December, 1837. The establishment of the indepen- 
dent treasury was again recommended by the president ; and on the 16th 
of January, a bill for that purpose was reported to the senate by Mr. 
Wright. This bill proposed the gradual collection of all revenues in 
specie, requiring on and after the 1st of January, 1839, the payment of 
one-sixth part in coin, and an additional one-sixth annually thereafter, 
until the 1st of January, 1844, when the whole would become thus pay- 
able. The bill was discussed with great ability at this session ; being 
supported mainly by Messrs. Wright, Benton, and others, and opposed by 
Messrs. Clay, Webster, Rives and White. On the 2d of February, Mr. 
Rives ofiered a substitute, containing a provision similar to the one pro- 
posed at the preceding annual session, requiring the payment of the 
revenues in coin and the notes of specie paying banks issuing bills of the 
larger denominations only. 

This scheme of finance did not appear to have increased in the public 
favor since the extra session. On the 6 th of February, Mr. Grundy 
presented resolutions of the legislature of Tennessee, by one of which 
the senators of that state were instructed to vote against the measure pro 
posed by the president ; and believing in the right of instruction by the 
legislature, he should comply. Mr. Buchanan also presented resolutions of 
the legislature of Pennsylvania, instructing the senators and requesting the 
representatives from that state, to vote for the postponement of the bili 
to the next session. Accompanying the resolution of instructions, were 
numerous reasons of the senate for concurring in the same. Mr. B. also 
declared his intention to comply with the instructions. Mr. Wall, of 
New Jersey, having been instructed to vote against the bill, declared his 
disregard of the instructions of the legislature of his state. 

The bill, before it was ordered to be engrossed, was amended by 
striking out what was deemed its most obnoxious section — " the specie 
clause," which required all revenues to be ultimately paid in gold and 
silver. An amendment moved by Mr. Webster, was adopted, prohibit- 
ing the secretary of the treasury from issuing any general order (as the 
specie circular) making any discrimination as to the funds or medium 
in which debts to the United States should be paid : ayes, 37 ; noes, 14. 
44 



690 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The vote on the final passage of the bill in the senate, was taken the 
2Gth of March : ayes, 27 ; noes, 25. Mr. Grundy and Mr. Buchanan, 
friends of the bill, voted in the negative, in obedience to instructions. 
The vote on its passage in the same body at the extra session, was 26 to 
20. In the house, the bill of the senate was reported the 27th, and laid 
on the table, 106 to 98. 

The speeches in the senate on, and incidental to the sub-treasury bill, 
were among the ablest efforts of these distinguished gentlemen ; and not 
a little interest was given to the debate by charges of political inconsis- 
tency and efi"orts at self-vindication. 

Mr. Hubbard, of New Hampshire, had, in his speech, read approv- 
ingly from that part of the president's message which ascribed the unex- 
pected results of the late elections to bank influence ; and had undertaken 
to explain the result in New York. Mr. Tallmadge, who had separated 
from his democratic friends, and was now one of those called " conserva- 
tives," in his reply to Mr. Hubbard, vindicated the people against the 
charge of the president, and ascribed the result to the principles adopted 
by the president and his party, from the creed of a faction (called " loco- 
foco") which had its origin in the city of New York, in 1829. This 
faction, he said, was turned out of Tammany Hall in the pure days of 
the democratic republican party, and held meetings in the open air 
whenever it was necessary to take measures to reduce thej^rice of flour, 
or to carry out any other great principle in political economy ! After 
their principles had received the countenance of the administration, they 
returned to the wigwam, displaced the ancient sachems, and there they 
now illustrate their ideas of freedom of speech and free discussion,, 
by forcible interruption of the assemblages of orderly citizens, who hap- 
pen to entertain opinions on matters of public policy contrary to their 
own. They are now the leaders of the party, and the prominent candi- 
dates for executive favor. [Appendix, Note J.] 

The leading feature of their creed, Mr. T. said, was the destruction 

OF THE whole BANKING SYSTEM OF THE COUNTRY THE REPEAL OF 

CHARTERS AND THE ABROGATION OF VESTED RIGHTS. And this WaS 

understood by the people to be the policy of the administration. En- 
couraged by their successful war on the bank of the United States, they 
had commenced a ruthless warfare agaibst the state banks ; not thinking 
that they might not be able to bring the same force into the field in the 
one case as in the other. They seemed to have forgotten that they had 
during the first war, persuaded the people that there were monstrous 
evils connected with the one bank, and equal benefits to be derived from 
the others ; that they had assured the people, that the state institutions 
could perform for the government all that had been done by the national 
tva.nk, and could give even a " better currency." 



tallmadge's speech. 691 

One evidence of the meditated destruction of the state banks by the 
administration, was^ that the proceedings of the meetings of the loco- 
focos in the great cities, where resolutions were adopted against the 
whole banking system, and in favor of an exclusive metallic currency, 
had been responded to by men in high official stations, and their res- 
ponses were perfectly satisfactory. With this high sanction, these wild 
doctrines began to spread. Many changed their opinions ; others adopted 
this radical creed, because it was approved by those who held the reins 
of party, and had the power of party dispensation. Another evidence 
of the prevalence of this radical spirit was seen in the treatment of the 
subject of suspension of specie payments. By the law of New York, 
(the old safety-fund law,) when a bank did not for ten days redeem its 
notes in specie, the chancellor was directed to issue his injunction, close 
its doors, appoint a receiver to collect its dues and pay its debts. There 
was then due the banks from the people about $70,000,000. The col- 
lection of this amount would have produced general distress and ruin. 
The legislature being in session, a law was forthwith passed, almost 
unanimously, to suspend for a year the forfeiture of the charters which 
had been incurred by their failing to redeem. This act had been openly 
denounced by public meetings in the city of New York, composed of 
persons claiming to be the exclusive friends of the administration. And 
this denunciation had been reiterated by the official organ of the govern- 
ment here. 

And why was the act denounced ? Because, without it, the banks 
would have all been prostrated, and we should have been at once brought 
to the " golden age " which had been so long desired. The great inter- 
ests of the country would have been sacrificed ; but what of that ? We 
should have had the " constitutional currency" — "a hard money gov- 
ernment " — " a successful experiment !" The suspension act was not a 
boon to the banks ; it was a favor to the people, while it saved the bank 
charters from forfeiture. Other states passed similar laws; and thus 
were frustrated the designs of those who deemed the suspension of 
specie payments the proper occasion to carry out their favorite plan of 
breaking down the whole banking system of the states. He did not say 
that the president entertained this design. But the people judged him 
by his measures. He convened congress for an extra session. The 
message was delivered; and the people believed that the administration 
intended to destroy the banks. This belief had been confirmed by the 
result. 

Farther : The banks having been saved by legislative enactments, the 
president recommended " a uniform law concerning bankruptcies of cor- 
porations, and other bankers," as a measure " fully authorized by the 



692 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

constitutlou." "What would have been the effect of such a law ? Every 
bank iu the union would have been handed over to commissioners, and 
its concerns closed up ; for all had suspended, and would of course have 
come within its provisions : and the effect would have been ruin from 
one extremity of the union to the other. Fortunately, congress did not 
adopt the recommendation, although it was urged with great power by 
one of the most prominent friends of the administration, (Mr. Benton.] 
This subject was not new to the president. In 1826, standing on thai 
floor, he maintained on this subject the same principles which he (Mr, 
T.) was now endeavoring to maintain. On the discussion of the bank- 
rupt bill, then before the senate, Mr. Van Buren, as senator, opposed 
its application to banking incorporations, " as an odious exercise of 
power not granted by the constitution." But in 1837, as president, he 
proposes " a uniform law concerning bankruptcies of corporations and 
other bankers," as a measure " fully authorized by the constitution." 

The people foresaw what would have been the effect of the propiosed 
bankrupt law ; and they saw the effect of the sub-treasury scheme. 
They knew both to be equally fatal. They saw, by the official organ, 
after it was defeated in the house, at the extra session, that it was to be 
again forced upon congress. Its adoption would have prevented the 
resumption of specie payments ; or, if the banks should resume, it 
would compel them to stop again. 

But there was another cause of the results of the late election. The 
people saw the treatment received by those who opposed these measures. 
They saw some of their representatives here, pursuing the straight- 
forward track of principle, refusing to turn about at the word of com- 
mand, and opposing the measure which the whole party, with Gen. Jack- 
son at their head, opposed in 1834, and which the official organ then 
pronounced " disorganizing and revolutionary." They saw all this ; 
and they saw also that for this adherence to principle, their represent- 
atives were denounced and proscribed by this same official organ of the 
administration 1 They saw established at the seat of government, by 
the discipline of party, a despotism, the most perfect on earth — the 

DESPOTISM OF OPINION ! 

This system of dictation and proscription, Mr. T. said, commenced 
during Gen. Jackson's second term. He would not tolerate a difference 
of opinion on any subject iu which his feelings were enlisted. It might 
have been owing to the infirmity of age. Witness the distribution bill, 
the specie circular, and the currency bill. In these measures, the great 
body of his friends in both houses were opposed to him, still, the official 
organ maintained the executive will, and denounced the action and opin- 
ions of those who constituted the legislative brar3h of the government 



t'allmadge's speech. 693 

The present executive had promised to " follow in the footsteps of his 
illustrious predecessor." This sub-treasury scheme was the darling 
projf!ct of the late president; and it was presumed that it was now 
brought forward in pursuance of this pledge. 

Mr. T. said his colleague, (Mr. Wright,) had spoken of that portion 
of the friends of the administration who opposed this scheme, as a small 
party, and intimated that they ought to give up their opinions to the 
majority. That small party were maintaining the principles which the 
whole party recently maintained ; and the difference between them being 
a matter of principle, it could not be compromised. The opinions of 
his colleague had, in all matters in difference, always coincided with those 
of the executive. And, had the executive recommended the state bank 
deposit system, they would have seen his colleague, with himself, (Mr. 
T.,) and his friend from Virginia (Mr. Eives) by his side, leading on 
his faithful troops ; and instead of the golden banner under which he 
was now fighting against the institutions of the states, and the rights of 
the states, he would raise aloft the stars and stripes of his country, the 
emblem of those rights ; and under that sign he would have conquered. 

Under the present system of party discipline and executive intimida- 
tion, Mr. T. said, the liberty of speech and of the press had been vir- 
tually abrogated. The executive department bad become too powerful 
for the legislative branch. The great apprehension of the framers of 
the constitution was from the legislative power. But the theory of the 
constitution had, in the short space of half a century, been reversed. 
The executive department had become so formidable as to overawe the 
legislature, and dictate to it the measures which the president himself 
was to execute. Add to that strength the powers of a treasury bank, 
which were contained in the bill, and there would have been given all 
that could define a despot. 

From this sketch of the speech of Mr. Tallmadge are seen, both the 
principles of the " conservatives," and the feelings which they entertained 
towards the party they had abandoned. Though comparatively small 
in numbers, they contributed much to the overthrow of that party at 
the succeeding presidential election. 

Mr. Calhoun, who had, since the removal of the deposits, or during 
most of the period of the " war upon the currency," as it was called, 
cooperated with the opposition, again united with the administration, 
and advocated the sub-treasury project, as a plan for separating the gov- 
ernment from all banks. In the course of his speech, he mentioned the 
fact that the opponents of this scheme, now supported the state bank 
system which a few years before they opposed. He said, however, that 
ne made no charge of inconsistency, being aware that, as a national back 



G94 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

was out of the question, they were compelled to choose between the 
state bank plan and that of the independent treasury. 

Mr. Clay, in his speech a few days afterwards, alluded to a late letter 
of Mr. Calhoun to a dinner committee in his own state, in which he had 
given his reasons for having joined the opposition, and reunited with the 
administration party. State interposition (meaning threatened nullifi- 
cation) had, the letter said, overthrown the protective tariff and the 
American system, and put a stop to congressional usurpation ; and, by 
a union with their old opponents, the national republicans, (or whigs,) 
they had effectually brought down the power of the executive. These 
objects effected, he had found it necessary to abandon his late allies, 
whose financial as well as general policy, was hostile to the interests of 
the south ; and " the southern division of the administration party must 
reoccupy the old state rights ground." Mr. Clay admitted that they 
had denounced the pet bank system ; they did so still ; but it did not 
follow that they must accept a worse one. The senator had said that 
the present bill would take the public moneys out of the hands of the 
executive, and place them in the hands of the law. It did no such tiling. 
It proposed by law to confirm them in the custody of the executive, and 
to convey to him new and enormous powers of control over them. Every 
custodary of the publi'' funds would be a creature of the executive, de- 
pendent upon his breath, and subject to removal by the same breath, 
whenever the executive, from caprice, from tyranny, or from party 
motives, should choose to order it. What safety was there for the 
public money in the hands of a hundred such dependent subordinates ? 

Mr. Clay remarked pretty severely upon the recent secession of Mr, 
Calhoun from the whig ranks. He said : " The arduous contest in 
which we were so long engaged, was about to terminate in a glorious 
victory. The very object for which the alliance was formed, was about 
to be accomplished. At this critical moment the senator left us ; he 
left us for the very purpose of preventing the success of the common 
cause. * * # jjg ]gft ^g^ as he tells us in the Edgefield letter, be- 
cause the victory which our common arms were about to achieve, was 
not to enure to him and his party, but exclusively to the benefit of his 
allies and their cause. I thought that, actuated by patriotism, (that 
noblest of human virtues,) we had been contending together for our 
common country, for her violated rights, her threatened liberties, her 
prostrate constitution. Never did I suppose that personal or party 
considerations entered into our views. Whether, if victory shall ever 
again be about to perch upon the standard of the spoils party, (the de- 
nomination which the senator has so often given to his present allies,) 
he will not feel himself constrained, by the principles upon which he has 



DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY BALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. 695 

acted, to leave them because it may not enure to the benefit of himself 
and his party, I leave to be adjusted between themselves." 

Mr. Calhoun, in reply, said, the leading charge of the senator was, 
that he had gone over to the other party. If, by this vague expression, 
he meant to imply that he had either changed his opinion, abandoned 
his principles, or deserted his party, he repelled the charge. [The 
secretary of the senate, at the request of Mr. C, read extracts from his 
speech on the removal of the deposits in 1834, showing his position at 
that time, as follows :] " If this was a que, tion of bank or no bank; if 
it involved the existence of the banking system, it would indeed be a 
great question — one of the first magnitude ; and with my present im- 
pression, long entertained, and daily increasing, I would hesitate, long 
hesitate, before I would be found under the banner of the system. I 
have great doubts, (if doubts they may be called,) as to the soundness 
and tendency of the whole system, in all its modifications. # * * * 
What, then, is the real question which now agitates the country ? I 
answer, it is a struggle between the executive and legislative depart- 
ments of the government ; a struggle, not in relation to the existence of 
the bank, but which, congress or the president, should have power to 
create a bank, and the consequent control over the currency of the 
country. This is the real question." 

Mr. Calhoun at that time considered this league, or association of 
states banks, created by the executive, and bound together by its influ- 
ence, as being, " to all intents and purposes, a bank of the United States 
an executive bank of the United States, as distinguished from that of 
congress ;" — and said : " However it might fail to perform satisfactorily 
the functions of the bank of the United States as incorporated by law, 
it would outstrip it, far outstrip it, in all its dangerous qualities, in ex- 
tending the power, the influence, and the corruption of the government. 

* * * * So long as the question is one between a bank of the United 
States incorporated by congress, and the system of banks created by the 
will of the executive, it is an insult to the understanding to discourse on 
the pernicious tendency and unconstitutionality of the bank of the 
United States. To bring up that question fairly, you must go one step 
farther — you must divorce the government and the banking system. 
You must neither receive nor pay away bank notes ; you must go back 
to the old system of the strongbox, and of gold and silver. If you have 
a right to treat bank notes as money, by receiving them in your dues 
and paying them away to creditors, you have a right to create a bank. 

* * * * I repeat, you must divorce the government entirely from 
the banking system, or, if not, you are bound to incorporate a bank 
as the only safe and efficient means of giving stability and uniformity to 



696 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the currency." These, Mr. C. said, were his sentiments delivered four 
years since, on the question of the removal of the deposits ; and he asked 
if there was any thing in them contradictory to his present opinions or 
course. 

Mr. C. also vindicated the consistency of his course in relation to the 
incorporation of a national bank in 1834. The currency was diseased ; 
the circulation was great, and must still farther increase. He stood 
almost alone. One party supported the league of state banks; the 
other the United States bank, the charter of which Mr. Webster proposed 
to renew for six years. From his speech on that question, the secretary 
was requested to read some extracts, of which the following is a part : 
" After a full survey of the whole subject, I see none, I can conjecture 
no means of extricating the country from its present danger, and to 
arrest its farther increase, but a bank ; the agency of which, in some 
form, or under some authority is indispensable. The country has been 
brought into the present diseased state of the currency by banks, and 
must be extricated by their agency. We must, in a word, use a bank 
to unbank the banks, to the extent that may be necessary to restore a 
safe and stable currency — ^just as we apply snow to a frozen limb to 
restore vitality and circulation, or hold up a burn to the flame to extract 
the inflammation. All must see that it is impossible to suppress the 
banking system at once. * * * A new and a safe system must 
gradually grow up under, and replace the old." 

Mr. C. then proceeded to show that Mr. Clay had put a forced and 
wrong construction on his language in the Edgefield letter, in which he 
gave as a reason for leaving the national republican party, " that the 
victory would enure not to us, but exclusively to the benefit of our allies 
and their cause." The motive was stated in the same paragraph : " The 
first fruits of the victory would have been an overshadowing national bank, 
with an immense capital, not less than from fifty to a hundred millions, 
which would have centralized the currency and exchanges, and with them 
the commerce and capital of the country, in whatever section the head 
of the institution might be placed." It was manifest that the expres- 
sion upon which the senator fixed, alluded, not to power or place, but 
to principle and policy. Mr. C. continued : " But we find the senator 
very charitably leaving to time to disclose my motives for going over ! 
I, who have changed no opinion, abandoned no principle, deserted no 
party ; I, who have stood still and maintained my ground against every 
difficulty, to be told that it is left to time to disclose my motive ! The 
imputation sinks to the earth with the groundless charge on which it 
rests. I stamp it with scorn in the dust. I pick up the dart which fell 
harmless a' my feet. I hurl it back. What the senator charges on mo 



DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. 697 

unjustly, he has actually done. He went over on a memorable occasion, 
and did not leave it to time to disclose his motive." 

Mr. C. closed his speech with a declaration of his present political 
position, and a review of his long public career, which had then been 
continuous for twenty-six years. 

Mr, Clay immediately replied. Having answered several charges of 
misrepresentation, he proceeds : " I am also accused of misrepresenting 
the senator in respect to the reception of redeemable bank notes for the 
term of six years, as provided for in the bill. He thinks it entirely 
constitutional to make such a limited arrangement, whilst it would be 
wholly inadmissible to continue for any indefinite time to receive such 
notes. The complaint is that I did not state the circumstances, condi- 
tions, and qualifications under which he proposes this temporary recep- 
tion of bank notes. I do not think that they can vary, in the smallest 
degree, the question of power. If the constitution prohibits the recep- 
tion of bank notes, the prohibition extends as well to a term of six years 
as to any indefinite time. 

" He argued that we are so connected with banks, that we must ease 
cflF gradually, and not suddenly discontinue the use of paper. The 
senator commenced his speech at the extra session, by announcing that 
there was a total rupture between the government and the banks by the 
suspension of specie payments. The disconnection still exists in fact 
and in law. The bill which the senator so warmly espouses makes a 
contingent revival of the connection. In 1816, also, the connection had 
altogether ceased in point of law. Then the senator proposed a bank 
of the United States, In both cases, if I understand him, he proceeds 
on the ground of practical inconvenience. Now, sir, I cannot for my 
life concur in making the constitution this nose of wax. * * * TJ^e 
doctrine of the senator in 1816 was, as he now states it, that bank notes 
being in fact received by the executive, although contrary to law, it was 
constitutional to create a bank of the United States. And iu 1834, 
finding that bank which was constitutional in its inception, but had 
become unconstitutional in its progress, yet in its existence, it was quite 
constitutional to propose, as the senator did, to continue it twelve years 
longer !" 

In reply to Mr. Calhoun's remark that " state interposition " had 
overthrown the protective tariiF, Mr. Clay said : " State interposition ! 
. — that is, as I understand the senator, nullification, he assorts, over- 
threw the tariff and the American system. * * « Nullification, 
Mr. President, overthrew the protective policy ! No, sir. The com- 
promise was not extorted by the terror of nullification. Among other 
more important motives that influenced its passage, it was a compas- 



698 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

sionate concession to the imprudence and impotency of nullificatioL ! 
* * * At the commencement of the session of 1832, the senator 
from South Carolina was in any condition other than that of dictating 
terms. Those of us who were then here must recollect well his haggard 
looks and his anxious, depressed countenance. A highly estimable 
friend of mine, Mr. J. M. Clayton, of Delaware, alluding to the possi- 
bility of a rupture with South Carolina, and to the declarations of 
president Jackson with respect to certain distinguished individuals 
whom he had denounced and proscribed, said to me on more than one 
occasion, referring to the senator from South Carolina and some of his 
colleagues : ' They are clever fellows, and it will never do to let old 
Jackson hang them.' Sir, this disclosure is extorted from me by the 
senator." 

Mr. Webster also came into collision with Mr. Calhoun. The latter 
had denied the power of congress to make general deposits of public 
revenue in banks, or to authorize the reception of anything but gold and 
silver in debts and dues to the government. Mr. W. referred to Mr. 
Madison, who, in opposing the first bank charter in 1791, argued that 
a bank of the United States was not necessary to government as a 
depository of public moneys, because its use could be supplied by other 
banks. And in 1800, congress made it the duty of collectors of customs 
to deposit bonds for duties in the bank and its branches for collection. 
In 1811, and 181G, the same power was recognized; as also in the depo- 
sit bill of 1836; the main object of which was to regulate deposits in 
the state banks. The same principle was incorporated in the bank 
charter of 1816, which was reported by the gentleman himself; and it 
passed without objection from any quarter. Several other cases were 
referred to in which Mr. Calhoun had approved the deposit of money in 
banks. These and other allusions to public acts of Mr. Calhoun, drew 
from him a retort to the charge of inconsistency. 

Mr. Calhoun adverted to the course of Mr. Webster on the tarifi" 
question. Its history rose subsequent to the late war with Great Brit- 
ain. The senator's associate in this attack (Mr. Clay) was its leading 
supporter and author. • The senator was at first opposed to the system. 
In 1820, ill a speech delivered in Faneuil Hall, he questioned its con- 
stitutionality, and denounced its inequality and oppression. He then 
held the very sentiments which he (Mr. C.) had so often expressed on 
that floor. In 1824, he delivered a speech in the other house, in reply 
to Mr. Clay, iu which he again denounced the system, in which he com- 
pletely demolished the arguments of his opponent. But a few months 
after, the presidential election took place ; Mr. Adams was elected by 
the cooperatior of the author of the American system and the senator. 



DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. 699 

New political combinations were formed, and resulted iu an alliance 
between the east and the west, of which that system formed the basis. 
A new light burst in on the senator. A sudden thought struck him ; 
but not quite as disinterested as that of the German sentimentalist. He 
made a complete summerset, heels over head ; went clear over ; deserted 
the free-trade side in a twinkling, and joined the restrictive policy ; and 
then cried out that he could no longer act with me, whom he left stand- 
ing where he had just stood, because I was too sectional ! With a few 
contortions and slight choking, he even gulped down, a few years after, 
the bill of abomination — the tariff of 1828. 

But he had done what was still more surprising. Oppression under 
the tariff of 1828 had become intolerable to the south. Something must 
be done promptly. But one hope was left short of revolution, and that 
was in the states themselves, in their sovereign capacities as parties to 
the constitutional compact. Fortunately one of the members of the 
union was bold enough to interpose her sovereign authority, and to de- 
clare the protective tariff unconstitutional, and therefore null and void 
within her limits. We all remember what followed. The proclamation 
was issued ; and the war message and force bill succeeded : and the 
state armed to maintain her constitutional rights. How did the senator 
act in this fearful crisis ? A sudden thought again struck him. He 
again, in a twinkling, forgot the past, rushed over into the arms of power, 
and became the champion of the most violent measures to enforce laws 
which he had pronounced unconstitutional and oppressive. 

Mr. Calhoun then proceeded to defend his own course, and to show 
that it had not been sectional. While the senator from Massachusetts 
had not given a vote to promote the interests of the south, he (Mr. 
Calhoun) had never withheld his support from measures calculated to 
promote the interests of the north, except the tariff and certain appro- 
priations, which he deemed unconstitutional ; and he mentioned his con- 
stant support of the navy; his resistance to the embargoes, non-importa- 
tion and non-intercourse acts ; his generous course in support of manu- 
factures that sprung up during the war, in which his friends thought he 
had gone too far ; to the liberal terms on which the tariff controversy 
had been settled, and the fidelity with which he had adhered to it ; and 
the system of fortifications for the defense of our harbors which he had 
projected and commenced, and which were so important to the two great 
interests of commerce and navigation, in which Mr. Webster's section 
had so deep a stake. He had also been quite as liberal to the west as 
the senator ; and, passing over other instances, he mentioned his propo- 
sition to cede public lands to the new states. He said he had intended 
to compare their conduct in relation to the late war with Great Britain, 
but he would not recur to these by-gone events, unless the senator 
should provoke him to it. 



700 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mr. Webster, in reply, asked, wliy tlie gentleman had alluded to his 
votes or opinions at all, respecting the war, unless he had something to 
say. Did he wish to leave an impression that something had been done 
or said that was incapable of defense or justification ? He would leave 
an impression that he had opposed it. How ? He was not in congress 
■when the war was declared, nor in public life anywhere. He came into 
congress during the war. Did he oppose it ? Let the gentleman look 
to the journals, or tax his memory. Let him bring up any thing show- 
ing want of loyalty or fidelity to the country. He did not agree to all 
that was proposed, nor did the gentleman. As a private individual, he 
certainly did not think well of the embargo and the restrictive measures 
which preceded the war; and the senator was of the same opinion. 

When he came to congress, he found the gentleman a leading member 
of the house. One of the first measures of magnitude was Mr. Dallas' 
proposition for a bank. It was a war measure — urged as being abso- 
lutely necessary to carry on the war. The member from South Carolina 
opposed it. He (Mr. W.) agreed with him. It was a mere paper bank — 
a mere machine for fabricating irredeemable paper. He made a speech 
against it which had often been quoted. If he had been seduced into 
error, the gentleman himself, who took the lead against the measure, was 
his seducer. The gentleman had also adverted to the navy. He had 
said, and said truly, that, at the commencement of the war, the navy 
was unpopular. It was so with the gentleman's friends who then con- 
trolled the politics of the country. But he said he diiTcred with his 
friends, and advocated the navy. And, said Mr. W., "I commend him 
for it. He showed his wisdom. That gallant little navy soon fought 
itself into favor, and showed that no man who had placed reliance on it, 
had been disappointed. In this, I was exactly of the same opinion with 
the honorable gentleman." 

In reply to the charge of Mr. Calhoun, that Mr. Webster had also 
proved himself unfriendly to the south, by his not voting his resolutions 
on slavery, Mr. W. said, if he was for that to be regarded as an enemy 
to the south, be it so. He could not purchase favor by the sacrifice of 
conscientious convictions. The principal resolution declared, that con- 
gress had plighted its faith not to interfere, either with slavery or the 
slave trade, in the District of Columbia. This he did not believe ; 
therefore he could not vote for the proposition. 

In regard to the tariff, Mr. W. said : " He charges me with inconsis- 
tency. I will state the facts. Let us begin at the beginning. In 1816, 
I voted against the tariff law which then passed. In 1 824, I again 
voted against the tariff law which was then proposed, and which passed. 
A majority of New England votes, in 1824, was against the tariff sys- 
tem The bill received but one vote from Massachusetts ; but it passed. 



DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. 701 

The policy was established ; New England acquiesced in it ; coLformed 
her business and pursuits to it ; embarked her capital and employed her 
labor, in manufactures ; and I certainly admit that, from that time, I 
have felt bound to support interests thus called into being and into 
importance, by the settled policy of the government. I have stated 
this often here, and often elsewhere. The ground is defensible, and I 
maintain it. * * * What is there in all this for the gentleman to 
complain of? Would he have us always oppose the policy adopted by 
the country on a great question ? Would he have minorities never sub- 
mit to the will of majorities ? 

" I remember to have said at the meeting in Faneuil hall, that pro- 
tection appeared to be regarded as incidental to revenue, and the inci- 
dents could not be carried fairly above the principal : in other words, 
that duties ought not to be laid for the mere object of protection. I 
believe that, if the power be inferred only from the revenue power, 
the protection could only be incidental. But I have said in this place 
before, and I repeat, that Mr. Madison's publication after that period, 
and his declaration that the convention did intend to grant the power of 
protection, under the commercial clause, placed the subject in a new and 
clear light. I will add, sir, that a paper drawn up by Dr. Franklin, and 
read by him to a circle of friends in Philadelphia, on the eve of the 
assembling of the convention, respecting the powers which the proposed 
new government ought to possess, shows, perfectly plain, that, in regu- 
lating commerce, it was expected congress would adopt a course which 
should, to some degree, protect the manufactures of the north. He cer- 
tainly went into the convention himself under that conviction." 

Mr. W. adverted to a declaration of Mr. C, that they had always 
differed on great constitutional questions. lie said : " Sir, this is 
astounding. * # * jje means that he has always given to the con- 
stitution a construction more limited, better guarded, less favorable to 
the extension of the powers of this government, than that which I have 
given to it. He has always interpreted it according to the strict doc- 
trine of state rights ! * * * Sir, is there a man in my hearing, 
. . . who ever heard, supposed, or dreamed, that the honorable member 
belonged to the state rights party before the year 1 825 ? ♦ * * 
The truth is, sir, the honorable gentleman had acted a very important 
and useful part during the war. In the fall of 1815, the 14th congress 
assembled. It was full of ability ; and the gentleman stood high among 
its di«itinguished members. . . . During that congress he took a decided 
lead in all those great measures which he has since so often denounced 
as unconstitutional and oppressive — the bank, the tariff, and internal 
improvements, . . He was a full length ahead of all others in mea 



702 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

fiures which were Dational, and which required a broad and liberal con- 
struction of the constitution." 

The tariff, Mr. W. said, was a South Carolina measure, as the votes would 
show, and was intended for the benefit of South Carolina interests. Even 
the minimum, that subject of so much wrathful rhetoric, was of southern 
origin, and had a South Carolina parentage. And next, as to the doctrine 
of internal improvements, that other usurpation, that other oppression, 
which had come so near to justifying violent abruption of the government, 
and scattering the union to the four winds. Said Mr. W. : "It is an 
indisputable truth, that he is himself the man — the «j9se that first brought 
forward, in congress, a scheme of general internal improvement, at the 
expense, and under the authority of this government." The bank was 
chartered in 1816. For the privilege of the charter, the proprietors 
paid one and a half million dollars ; and the government took seven mil- 
lions of the stock of the bank. Early in the next session, December, 
1816, the gentleman moved to set apart this bonus and the bank stock 
as a permanent fund for internal improvements ; and was chairman of 
the committee, and reported a bill accordingly. This bill went the 
whole doctrine, at a single jump, and announced internal improvement 
as one of the objects of this government, on a grand and systematic 
plan. He went even beyond Timothy Pickering, who, having offered an 
amendment requiring the money " to be applied in coustructiog such 
roads, canals, &c., in the several states, as congress might direct, with 
the assent of the states," the gentleman immediately moved to strike 
out the words, " ivith the assent of the states.^'' He advocated both the 
policy of internal improvement, and the power of congress over the sub- 
ject : and the bill passed the house with the amendment of Mr. Picker- 
ing with these words retained. [Note K.] 

The debate did not end here. We cannot, however, extend this sketch, 
which has already exceeded the limits intended. But as few American 
statesmen have ever attained a higher eminence, or borne a more impor- 
tant part in the government, than Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, any 
political history which did not properly present their principles and acts 
during their long public career, would, it was thought, be materially 
defective. 

A joint resolution virtually repealmg the specie circular of July, 1836, 
was passed, May 31, 1838, by large majorities in both houses, and 
became a law by the approval of the president. The resolution declared, 
" That it shall not be la^vful for the secretary of the treasury to make or 
to continue in force, any general order which shall create any difference 
between the different branches of revenue, as to the money or medium 
of payment in which debts or dues, accruing to the United States, may 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 703 

be paid." At the time of issuing the circular, in 1836, no treasury notes 
were in existence ; consequently, at the time of passing the above resolu- 
tion, not even these notes, previously issued, were receivable for public 
lands. By this act, all payments to the government might be made 
either in specie, treasury notes, or the bills of specie paying banks. By 
acts of April and June, 1836, however, no bank notes of any denomina- 
tion less than twenty dollars, nor those of any bank issuing notes or bills 
of a less denomination than five dollars, were to be received. A circular 
to this eifect was issued from the treasury department to all receivers 
and collectors of public money, the day after the passage of the resolu- 
tion above mentioned. 



CHAPTER LYII. 

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. — SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. PROPOSI- 
TION WITHDRAWN BY TEXAS. 

The recognition of the independence of Texas at the last session of 
congress, (1836-37,) and the application of that republic for annexation 
to the United States, furnished new aliment to the anti-slavery excite- 
ment. To the petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of 
Columbia, were now added remonsti-ances against the annexation of Texas. 
Resolutions were passed by the legislatures of several states, to the same 
efiect. In some states, legislative resolutions were adopted in favor of 
annexation. 

Mr. Preston, senator from South Carolina, said these memorials were 
known to come from a particular quarter, and from a particular class of 
politico-philanthropists. He therefore gave notice, that he should feel 
himself compelled to introduce a proposition, at an early day, for the 
annexation of Texas to the union. Accordingly, on the 4th of January, 
1838, he offered the following: 

" "Whereas, the just and true boundary of the United States under the 
treaty of Louisiana, extended on the south-west to the Rio Grande del 
Norte, which river continued to be the boundary line until the territory 
west of the Sabine was surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1819 ; 

" And whereas such surrender of a portion of the territory of the 
United States is of evil precedent and doubtful constitutionality ; 

" And whereas many weighty considerations of policy make it expe- 
■^ient to reestablish the said true boundary, and to reannex to the United 



704 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

States the territory occupied by the state of Texas, with the consent of 
the said state : 

" Be it therefore resolved, That, with the consent of the said state 
previously had, and whenever it can be effected consistently with the 
faith and treaty stipulations of the United States, it is desirable and 
expedient to reannex the said territory to the United States." 

On the 24th of April, 1838, the resolution was taken up for consider- 
ation, and supported by a speech, which, though not devoid of argument, 
is most valuable for the historical information which it contains : 

Mr. Preston said his proposition was not indecorous or presumptuous, 
since the lead had been given by Texas herself The question of annex- 
ation, on certain terms, had been submitted to the people of the republic, 
and decided in the affirmative ; and a negotiation had been proposed for 
effecting the object. Nor did his resolution give just cause of offense to 
Mexico. Its terms guarded our relations with that republic. Our 
intercourse with Mexico should be characterized by fair dealing, on 
account of her unfortunate condition, resulting from a long continued 
series of intestine dissensions. As long, therefore, as she should attempt 
to assert her pretensions by actual force, or as long as there was a reason- 
able prospect that she had the power and the will to resubjugate Texas, 
he would not interfere. He believed that period had already passed. 
In this opinion he differed, perhaps, from the executive. The negotia- 
tion had been declined by the secretary of state, because it would involve 
our relations with Mexico. Admitting that the executive bad more 
extensive and exact information upon this question than he (Mr. P.) 
could have ; the resolution therefore expressed an opinion in favor of 
annexation only when it could be done without disturbing our relations 
with Mexico. 

The acquisition of territory, Mr. P. said, had heretofore been effected 
by treaty ; and this mode of proceeding had been proposed by the Texan 
minister, Gen. Hunt. But he believed it would comport more with the 
importance of the measure, that both branches of the government should 
concur; the legislature expressing a previous opinion; which being done, 
all difficulties might be avoided by a treaty tripartite, between Mexico, 
Texas, and the United States, in which the consent and confirmation of 
Mexico (for a pecuniary consideration, perhaps,) might be had without 
infringing the acknowledged independence and free agency of Texas. 

Mr. P. proceeded to show that the Texan territory was once a part of 
the United States. In 1762, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. In 
1800, Spain receded it to France. In 1804, France ceded it to the 
United States. The extent of the French claim, therefore, determined 
ours, and included Mississippi and all the territories drained by its wc<»* 



SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. 705 

ern tributaiics. It rested upon the discovery of La Salle, in 1683, whc 
penetrated from Canada b} land, descended the Mississippi, and estab- 
lished a few posts on its banks. Soon afterwards, endeavoring to enter 
the mouth of that river from the Gulf, he passed it unperceived, and 
sailing westward, discovered the bay of St. Bernard, now called Mata- 
gorda, whence, a short distance in the interior, he established a military 
post on the bank of the Gruadaloupe, and took possession of the country 
in the name of his sovereign. The western limits of the territory, 
enuring to the French crown by virtue of this discovery, was determined 
by the application of a principle recognized by European powers making 
settlements in America, viz. : that the dividing line should be established 
at a mediuiu distance between their various settlements. At the time 
of La Salle's settlement, the nearest Spanish possession was a small post 
called Panuco, at the point where a river of that name falls into the bay 
of Tampico. The medium line between Panuco and the Gruadaloupe was 
the Rio Grande, which was assumed as the true boundary between France 
and Spain. France asserted her claim to that boundary from 16S5, the 
period of La Salle's discovery, up to 1762, when, by the cession of 
Louisiana to Spain, the countries were united and the boundaries 
obliterated. 

Mr. P. referred to Mr. Adams' letter to Don Onis, of March, 1818, 
in which he recapitulated the testimony in favor of the French title. 
Mr. Jefferson expressed the same opinion. Messrs. Monroe and Pinck- 
ney, in 1805, in obedience to instructions from Mr. Madison, then secre- 
tary of state, asodrted our claim west to the Rio Grande, in their 
correspondence with the Spanish commissioner. Mr. Monroe, when pre- 
sident, held equally strong language, through Mr. Adams, his secretary 
of state. Gen. Jackson entertained the same opinion. 

To the testimony of these presidents, he added the authority of the 
senator from Kentucky. During the delay on the part of Spain, in 
ratifying the treaty of 181'9, that senator, then in the other house, taking 
the same view of the treaty which he (Mr. P.) was now urging — that it 
was a cession of a part of our territory to which the treaty-making power 
was incompetent, offered the following resolutions : 

" 1. Resolved, That the constitution of the United States vests in 
congress no power to dispose of the territory belonging to them ; and 
that no treaty purporting to alienate any portion thereof is valid, with- 
out the concurrence of congress. 

" 2. Resolved, That the equivalent proposed to be given by Spain to 
the United States, for that part of Louisiana west of the Sabine, was 
inadequate, and that it would be inexpedient to make a transfer thereof 
to any foreign power." 

45 



706 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



The author of these resolutions, in advocating them, said : " He pre- 
sumed the spectacle would not be presented of questioning, in this branch 
of the government, our title to Texas, which had been constantW main- 
tained by the executive for more than fifteen years past, under three suc- 
cessive administrations." And he said : "In the Florida treaty, it was 
not pretended that the object was simply a declaration of where the 
western line of Louisiana was ; it was, on the contrary, the case of 
an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain. The 
whole of the correspondence manifested that the respective parties to the 
negotiation were not engaged so much in an inquiry where the limit of 
Louisiana was, as where it should be. We find various limits discussed. 
* * * Finally the Sabine is fixed, which neither of the parties ever 
contended was the ancient limit of Louisiana. * * * And the treaty 
itself proclaims its purpose to be a cession of the United States to Spain." 
Such, Mr. P. said, were the opinions of the senator in 1820, and he 
trusted the wisdom and patriotism which warred against that rash treaty 
of 1819, would now be exerted against its great and growing evils, by 
the reannexation of Texas. 

But he took higher ground than this. Mr. Clay rested the constitu- 
tional objection upon the incompetency of the treaty-making power to 
alienate territory; he (Mr. P.) considered it incompetent to the whole 
government. The constitution vests in congress the power " to dispose 
of the territory or other property of the United States." This clause 
was inserted to give power to effect the objects for which the states had 
granted these lands to the general government ; and the true exposition 
of the clause was found in our vast and wise land system. It was never 
dreamed that congress could dispose of the sovereignty of territory to a 
foreign power. The south, he said, had gone blindly into this treaty. 
The importance of Florida had led them precipitately into a measure 
by which we threw a gem away that would have bought ten Floridas. 
Under any circumstances, Florida would have been ours in a short time; 
but our impatience had induced us to purchase it by a- territory ten 
times as large, a hundred times as fertile, and to give five millions of 
dollars into the bargain. He acquiesced in the past ; but he proposed 
to seize the present fair and just occasion to remedy the mistake made 
'in 1819 ; to repair, as far as possible, the evil effect of a breach of the 
constitution, by getting back into the union that fair and fertile province 
which, in an evil hour, we severed from the confederacy. 

This proposition which now inflamed the public mind was not a novel 
policy. It was strange that a measure which had been urged for twelve 
y.ars past should be met by a tempest of opposition; and very strange 
that lie should be riding upon and directing the storm, who was first to 



SrEE<'HES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. 707 

propose the jinnexatlon of Texas, as one of the earliest measures of hia 
administration after he was made president. He had endeavored to 
repair the injury inflicted upon the country by the treaty of 1819. As 
secretary of state in 1819, he negotiated the treaty of transfer; in 1825, 
as president of the United States, he instituted a negotiation for the 
reannexation. Through his secretary of state, Mr. Clay, he instructed 
Mr. Poinsett, minister to Mexico, to urge a negotiation for the reacqui- 
sitiou of Texas, and the establishment of the south-west line of the 
United States at the Rio Grande del Norte. Jackson and Van Buren 
liad continued the effort ; and why it had failed, it was useless now to 
inquire. It was certain, that president Jackson never lost sight of it, 
and that he continued to look to its accomplishment as one of the 
greatest events of his administration, to the moment when the title of 
Mexico was extinguished for ever by the battle of San Jacinto. [Ap- 
pendix, Note L.] 

Mr. P. considered the boundary line established by the treaty of 
1819, as an improper one, not only depriving us of an extensive and 
fertile territory, but winding with " a deep indent" upon the valley of 
the Mississippi itself, running upon the Red river and the Arkansas. 
It placed a foreign nation in the rear of our Mississippi settlements, 
within a stone's throw of that great outlet which discharged the com- 
merce of half the union. The mouths of the Sabine and the Mississippi 
were of a dangerous vicinity. The great object of the purchase of 
Louisiana was to remove all possible interference of foreign states in 
the vast commerce of the outlet of so many states. By the cession of 
Texas, this policy had been to a certain extent compromised. He also 
referred to the instructions of secretary Van Buren to Mr. Poinsett, 
saying : " The line proposed as the most desirable to us would consti- 
tute a most natural separation of the resources of the two nations." 

Mr. P. next considered the report of a committee of the Massachu- 
setts legislature, which said : " The committee do not believe that any 
power exists in any branch of this government, or in all of them united, 
to consent to such a union, (viz. with the sovereign state of Texas,) nor, 
indeed, does such authority pertain, as an incident of sovereignty, or 
otherwise, to the government, however absolute, of any nation." Both 
of these propositions he controverted. As to the powers of this govern- 
ment, the mistake of the committee laid in considering it, as to its 
nature and powers, a consolidated government. The states originally 
came together as sovereign states, having no power of reciprocal control. 
North Carolina and Rhode Island stood off for a time, and at length 
came in by the exercise of a sovereign discretion. So Missouri and 
ther new states were fully organized and perfect, and self-governed, 



708 THE AMEraCAN STATESMAN. 

before tliey came in ; and so might Texas be admitted. The power to 
admit new states was expressly given ; and by the very terms of the 
grant they must be states before they were admitted. The power 
granted to congress was, not to create, but to admit new states ; the 
states created themselves. Missouri and Michigan had done so, and 
exercised all the functions of self-government, while congress deliberated 
whether they should be admitted. In the mean time, the territorial 
organization was abrogated, and the laws of congress superseded. 

After some farther discussion of the question, Mr. P. said : " There 
is no point of view in which the proposition for annexation can be con- 
sidered, that any serious obstacle in point of form presents itself If 
this government be a confederation of states, then it is proposed to add 
another state to the confederation. If this government be a consolida- 
tion, then it is proposed to add to it additional territory and popula- 
tion. That we can annex, and afterwards admit, the cases of Florida 
and Louisiana prove. We can therefore deal with the people of Texas 
for the territory of Texas; and the people can be secured in the rights 
and privileges of the constitution, as were the subjects of Spain and 
France." 

Having considered these " formal difficulties," he next adverted to 
those which exercised a more decisive influence over that portion of the 
union which was offering such determined opposition to this measure. 
He regarded this joint movement of the northern states as " a combina- 
tion conceived in a spirit of hostility towards one section, for the pur- 
pose of aggrandizing the political power of another." It could not fail 
to make a deep and mournful impression upon the south, that the oppo- 
sition to the proposed measure was contemporaneous with the recent 
excitement on the subject of abolition. He said : " All men, of all 
parties, from all sections, in and out of office, Mr. Adams most con- 
spicuous amongst them, desired the acquisition of Texas, until the 
clamorous interference in the afi"airs of the south was caught up in Nev/ 
England from Old England. Then, for the first time, objections were 
made to this measure ; then those very statesmen who were anxious for 
the acquisition of Texas for their glory, found out that it would subvert 
the constitution and ruin the country * * # You are called upon 
to declare that the southern portion of your confederacy, by reason of 
certain domestic institutions, in the judgment of your petitioners wicked 
and detestable, is to be excluded from some part of the benefits of this 
government. The assumption is equally insulting to the feelings and 
derogatory to the constitutional rights of the south. # • * ^q 
neither can nor ought — I say it, Mr. President, in no light mood or 
wrong temper — we neither can nor ought tt continue in political union 
on yuch terms." 



SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. 709 

Mr. P. spoke of the diminution of tlie comparative political j ower of 
the south. The sceptre, he said, had passed from them, and forever. 
All that was left them was to protect themselves. All they asked was 
some reasonable check upon an acknowledged power ; some approach to 
equipoise in the senate. All the power they coveted was the power to 
resist incursions. He suspected that the idea of checking the extension 
of domestic slavery was but a hollow and hypocritical pretext to cover 
political designs. He did not think the extension of slave territory and 
the increase of the slaveholding population, would increase the number 
of slaves. Instead of this, annexation would rather prevent such 
increase. * * * "We stand entirely on the defensive ; we desire 
safety^ not power, and we must have it. G-ive us safety and repose, by 
doing what all your most trusted and distinguished statesmen have been 
so long anxious to do. Give them to us by restoring what you wantonly 
and unconstitutionally deprived us of. Give us this just and humble 
boon, by repairing the violated integrity of your territory, by augment- 
ing your wealth and power, by extending the empire of law, liberty and 
Christianity." 

In the house of representatives, on the 12th of December, 1837, Mr. 
Adams presented a large number of memorials against the annexation of 
Texas, and moved that these and all others presented by himself and 
his colleagues at the extra session, be referred to a select committee. 
His colleagues had assented to approve the motion. Mr. Howard, of 
Maryland, having moved their reference to the committee on foreign 
affairs, Mr. Adams expressed his views on the question of annexation in 
a manner which subjected him to several interruptions. 

Mr. Adams said he and his colleagues viewed this question as one 
which involved even the integrity of the union — a question of the most 
deep, abiding and vital interest to the whole American nation. " For," 
said he, " in the face of this house, and in the face of Heaven, I 
avow it as my solemn belief, that the annexation of an independent 
foreign power to this government, would, ipso facto ^ be a dissolution of 
this union. And is this a subject for the peculiar investigation of your 
committee on foreign affairs ?" Mr. A. said the question involved was, 
whether a foreign nation — acknowledged as such in a most unprecedented 
and extraordinary manner, by this government, a nation " damned to 
everlasting fame" by the reinstitution of that detestable system, slavery, 
after it had once been abolished within its borders — should be admitted 
into union with a nation of freemen. " For, sir," said Mr. A., " that 
name, thank God, is still ours ! And is such a question as this to be 
referred to a committee on foreign affairs?" 

Mr. A. said the exact grounds upon which the memorialists based their 



7i0 THE AMEIUCAN STATESMAN. 

])rayer, were not yet officially known to the house. He had prteented 
ono liundred and ninety petitions upon this subject, signed by some 
20,000 persons, and his colleagues had presented collectively a larger 
number. Members from other states had also presented similar memo- 
rials ; but his colleagues had thought it jBtting to move the reference to 
a select committee of those only which he and they had presented. All 
had the same object; and they contained nothing that had the least 
connection with the foreign afifairs of the country. 

These memorialists from Massachusetts, Mr. A. said, had observed 
with alarm and terror the conduct of the government towards Mexico, 
during the last, and as far as it had gone, of the present administration, 
in relation to the affairs of Texas. One strong reason of the remon- 
strance, on the part of his constituents, was, that the nation sought to 
be annexed to our own had its origin in violence and fraud; an impression 
by no means weakened by the impulses given by the late and present 
administrations to push on this senseless and wicked war with Mexico. 
They had scjcn the territory of that republic invaded by the act of the 
executive of this government, without any action of congress ; and they had 
seen conspirators coming here, and contriving and concerting their plans 
of operations with members of our own government ! Amidst all these 
demonstrations, they had heard the bold and unblushing pretense that 
the people of Texas were struggling for freedom, and that the wrongs 
inflicted upon them by Mexico had driven them into insurrection, and 
forced them to fight for liberty ! 

There had been recent evidence afforded the country as to the real 
origin of the insurrection. A citizen of Virginia, (Dr. Mayo,) who for 
years had held offices under the late administration, had just issued a 
pamphlet ia this city, giving a copy of a letter by himself, in December, 
1830, to the president of the United States, in which he declared, that, 
in February, 1830, the person now caWed president Houston, did in this 
city, disclose to himself, the author of this letter, all his designs as to 
this then state of the republic of Mexico — Texas. What that letter 
contained as to the disclosure of a scheme to be executed, was now a 
matter of history. It disclosed the particulars of a conversation which 
detailed the plan of the conspiracy, since consummated, to rob Mexico of 
the province of Texas. 

Mr. A. then inquired what were the pretenses upon which the dis- 
severment of Texas from Mexico were justified. As early as 1824, the 
legislature of the republic of Mexico, to its eternal honor, passed an act 
for the emancipation of slaves, and the abolition of slavery ; and the 
only real ground of rebellion was that very decree : the only object of 
the insurrection, the revival of the detested system of slavery ; and she 



SrEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. V 1 1 

had adopted a constitution denying to her legislature even the power of 
ever emancipating her slaves ! 

Mr. Adams did not wish to refer the memorials to the committee on 
foreign affairs, because it was not properly constituted. Its chairman, 
(Mr. Howard,) was himself a slaveholder, and, it was feared, entertained 
a widely different opinion, as to the morality of slavery, from that held 
by the mass of the memorialists ; and that a majority of the committee 
were in favor of annexing Texas to this government. It was conforma- 
ble with the parliamentary rule to appoint a majority of a committee in 
favor of the prayer of the memorialists. This seemed to him as one of 
the incidents of freedom of petition itself. Six out of nine of the com- 
mittee on foreign affairs were slaveholders ; and he took it for granted, 
that every member of the house who was a slaveholder, was ready for the 
annexation of Texas ; and its accomplishment was sought, not for the 
acquisition of so much new territory, but as a new buttress to the totter- 
ing institution of slavery. 

After a brief interruption by southern members, Mr. A. proceeded : 

He said, discussion must come : though it might for the present be 
delayed, he believed it would not forever be smothered by previous ques- 
tions, motions to lay on the table, and all the other means and arguments 
by which the institution of slavery was wont to be sustained on that 
floor — the same means and arguments, in spirit, which in another place 
have produced murder and arson. Yes, sir, the same spirit which led to 
the inhuman murder of Lovejoy at Alton 

The chair remarked that Mr. A. was straying from the question of 
reference ; and some conversation ensued as to his right to proceed, 
which he was at length permitted to do. 

In the course of his remarks, he said that he and his colleagues had 
seen, in reading the late message of the executive, how much was not in 
that document as well as how much was in it. It contained much allu- 
sion to the grievances of this government at the hands of Mexico, and 
none to our relation with Texas. The annexation of Texas and the 
proposed war with Mexico, were one and the same thing, though express- 
ed in different forms. The message was adverse to the prayer of the 
memorialists. Under the decision of the chair, he should reserve what 
he had to say further on this point until the mouths of members inclined 
to advocate the cause of freedom upon that floor, should be permitted to 
be opened more widely; if indeed, there was any hope that that time 
should ever arrive. 

Mr. Wise said there was no need, at present, of any such reference as 
had been proposed. Texas had attempted to open a negotiation for ad- 
mission ; but her overture had been declined on the ground of our rela- 



712 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tions with Mexico. No meruorial in favor of such a measure had ever 
been before this house. It would be time enough to discuss the subject 
dwelt upon with so much feeling by the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
when it should come up regularly for discussion. He therefore moved 
to lay the motions of reference on the table ; and, having refused to 
withdraw his motion at the request of Mr. Rhett and Mr. Dawson to 
enable thiCm to reply to Mr. Adams, the question was taken, and decided 
in the affirmative : yeas, 127; nays, 68. 

Oi- the 13th of June, 1838, the committee on foreign affairs reported 
that there was no proposition pending in the house either for the admis- 
sion of Texas as a state, or for its territorial annexation to the United 
States. And in October it was announced in the official paper (Globe) 
that, since the proposition submitted by Texas for admission into the 
union had been declined, the Texan minister had communicated to our 
government the formal and absolute withdrawal of that proposition. 
The question was not again agitated in congress during the administra 
tion of Mr. Van Buren. 



CHAPTER LVIII. 

"patriot war." AFFAIR OF THE CAROLINE. TRIAL OF m'kEN/,1E 

AND VAN RENSSELAER. TRIAL OF m'lEOD. 

In December, 1837, an affair occurred, which, for a time, threatened 
to interrupt our amicable relations with Great Britain. An insurrec- 
tionary movement was made in Upper Canada, having in view a reform 
in the government of that province. A proclamation had been issued 
from Navy island, signed by Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, chairman, pro. tern, 
of the provincial government, calling upon the reformers to make that 
island their place of rendezvous, and to aid otherwise in revolutionizing 
the province. It offered a bounty of three hundred acres of land to all 
volunteers; and a reward of five hundred pounds for Sir Francis Head, 
the governor of the province. It stated that the command of the forces 
was given to Gen. Van Rensselaer, a sou of Gen. Solomon Van Rens- 
selaer, of Albany. The sympathy manifested by some citizens of the 
United States with the Canadian insurgents, induced the governors of 
New York and Vermont to issue proclamations, exhorting the citizens 
of these states to refrain from any unlawful acts within the territory of 
the United States. Notwithstanding these proclamations, the insurgents 



AFFAIR OF THE CAROLINE. 713 

were joined by citizens of the United States ; whence also they received 
arms and munitions of war. 

On the night of the 29th of December, the steamboat Caroline, owned 
by one of our citizens, while lying at Schlosser, on the American shore, 
was seized by a party of seventy or eighty armed men in boats, which 
came from, and returned to the Canadian shore. The crew and several 
other persons on board, were attacked while asleep, and one of them 
killed ; the boat was set on fire, taken into the river, and left to be 
carried over the Niagara falls. The boat having conveyed visiters to 
and from Navy island, it was suspected by the Canadians, that it had 
been employed in transporting supplies to the insurgents. It appeared 
subsequently, that the outrage had been committed by the order of the 
British commanding ofl&cer, Col. M'Nab. 

A proclamation was promptly issued, (January 5,) by president Van 
Buren, enjoining on all citizens obedience to the laws, warning them that 
the violation of our neutrality would subject the offenders to punish- 
ment. Information of the affair was also communicated by the presi- 
dent to congress. Gen. Scott was forthwith ordered to the Canada 
frontier to assume the military command there ; and requisitions were 
made upon Gov. Marcy, of New York, and Gov. Jenison, of Vermont, 
for such militia force as Gen. Scott might require for the defense of the 
frontier. 

A letter was also addressed by Mr. Forsyth, secretary of state, to Mr. 
Fox, British minister at Washington, communicating a copy of the 
evidence of the outrage, which, having been committed, " at the moment 
when the president was anxiously endeavoring to allay the excitement, 
and earnestly seeking to prevent any unfortunate occurrence on the 
frontier," would " necessarily form the subject of a demand for redress 
upon her majesty's government." And the expectation was expressed, 
that an early explanation might be obtained by Mr. Fox from the Cana- 
dian authorities, of the circumstances of the transaction, and that, by 
his advice, precautions might be used to prevent similar occurrences. 

In the senate, a bill was reported by the committee on foreign rela- 
tions, to protect the frontier, and to preserve our neutral relations. It 
authorized the seizure of vessels belonging to citizens of the United 
States, fitted out upon our lakes and rivers, with arms and munitions of 
war on board, when there should be cause to suspect that they were de- 
signed to aid persons who had taken up arms against the government of 
a neighboring state or colony. The bill passed the senate ; but in the 
house it was laid on the table ; and a bill was passed, amending an exist- 
ing act having in view the same object; which bill also passed the 
senate, and became a law. 



714 THE a:ierican statesman. 

A history of this " patriot war," as it was called, Joes not come within 
the scope of this work. Suffice it to say, that all the patriot forces along 
the frontier, from Vermont to Michigan, were disbanded before the 
ensuing spring, and tranquillity was restored. A considerable number 
of Americans were taken prisoners by the Canadians, and tried under the 
British laws. A number of them were convicted : some of whom were 
executed, and others sentenced to transportation to Van Dieman's land. 
Of the latter was Gen. Sutherland, one of the principal commanding 
officers of the patriot army. He, however, never was taken farther than 
England, where he was finally discharged. It should be added, that, 
in November and December of 1838, an ill-advised and reckless invasion 
of Canada was attempted at Prescott, opposite Ogdensburg, and another 
at Sandwich, near Detroit. But the almost entire destruction of the 
invaders, and another proclamation from president Van Buren, seem to 
have put a check upon these movements, which soon after entirely ceased. 

There were incidents, however, growing out of this attempted revolu- 
tion, and involving legal principles, which deserve notice in this place. 
Mackenzie, having taken up his residence in this country, was indicted, 
tried, and convicted in a circuit court of the United States, for a viola- 
tion of our neutrality law. In his defense, he attempted to show that 
the revolt in Canada was justifiable and proper ; that what he had done, 
had been done by others with impunity and approval, as in the cases of 
Texas, South America, Greece, &c. ; and he referred to a decision of 
this same court in the city of New York, that it was not a violation of 
the neutrality act to furnish money, supplies, and munitions of war, to 
enable Texas to carry on a war against Mexico. 

The court, (Judge Thompson,) in his charge to the jury, held, that 
the oppression of the people of Canada, though it might justify an 
attempt to free themselves from such oppression, had no bearing on 
this question. Those who governed those provinces might govern them 
as they pleased, and those who lived under that government might find 
what fault they pleased. It was a family quarrel with which we had 
nothing to do. Any. interference on our part would be improper, per- 
haps lead to war. To prevent such interference, the neutrality act wai 
passed. The act, however, did not prevent an individual from entering 
the service of any body of men or of any nation ; it only prohibited the 
assisting in fitting out, or the providiug means for, or aiding in an expe- 
dition /"/w/i the United States against a power with which we are at 
peace. Hence, the mere meeting together of individuals, or the raising 
of money, or the collection of arms, to send to Texas, was not a violation 
of this law ; because it did not contemplate the fitting out of an expedi- 
tion in this :ountri/, and sending it to another country. 



TRIAL OF m'kENZIE AND VAN RENSSELAER. 7i& 

Reference had been made to the destruction of the Caroline to show 
the existence of war. But we had no right to draw such an iufcrenco 
from that act. War could not be presumed to exist, until it had been 
declared by congress. Nor was the argument correct, that he alone 
was responsible who organizes or commands an expedition. But any 
person who participates in, or is in any way connected with it is equally 
culpable. 

It appeared that the defendant addressed a meeting in the city of 
Buffalo. He had endeavored to excuse himself by saying that he had 
been invited to do so. That, however, did not affect the question of 
guilt. But no guilt was incurred in attending and addressing the meet- 
ing, but by his subsequent acts : the speeches could only go as evidence 
of the intent of what followed. He said those in arms in Canada wanted 
munitions of war. In this was nothing wrong. But after the meeting, 
he joined Sutherland, who asked for volunteers in the presence of the 
defendant. There was music at the door, and a party followed that 
music with Sutherland at its head. And the next day the defendant 
was with him at Black Bock. In what way was he connected with him ? 
The proclamation had been produced as evidence. Had the proclama- 
tion been proved upon him ? It had been proved that he had procured 
the printing of a thousand copies, had read the proof, and at Navy island 
had given copies to Smith and others ; and they had been distributed. 
But this proclamation is important only because it identifies him with 
Sutherland and Van Rensselaer as cooperators in the expedition. 

Under the charge of which this is a sketch, the defendant was found 
guilty. The court having no authority to send him to the state's prison, 
he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment in the county jail, 
(at Rochester,) and to pay a fine of $10. After a confinement of ten 
or eleven months, the residue of his punishment was remitted by the 
president. Van Rensselaer was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, 
and a fine of $250. Being unable to pay the fine, the president remit- 
ted the same. 

Another case was that of Alexander M'Leod, a Canadian, who was 
charged with having participated in cutting out and burning the Caro- 
liue. Ho was arrested at Lockport, Niagara county, N. Y., in the fall 
of 1840, and committed to jail in that jlace. He was afterwards 
indicted by a grand jury for the murder of Amos Durfee, who was on 
board the Caroline at the time of the burning of that vessel. This case 
excited much interest, and not a little apprehension of a collison between 
the two countries. M'Leod had been indicted for an off"ense against the 
laws of New York ; and, if convicted, it was presumed the penalty of 
the law would be inflicted upon him. But the act for which M'Leod 



716 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

bad been arraigned baving been sanctioned by tbe British government, 
that government would, it was j^resumed, feel bound to protect its sub- 
jects. On this presumption was founded the apprehension above men- 
tioned. 

In May, 1841, M'Leod was taken under a writ of habeas corpus^ 
returnable at the May term of the supreme court, which was to be held 
in the city of New York ; but the decision of the court was not given 
until the July term. The British government had, through their minis- 
ter, de'manded the release of M'Leod, on the ground, "that the trans- 
action on account of which he had been arrested, was one of a public 
character, planned and executed by persons duly authorized to do any 
acts necessary for the defense of her majesty's territories, and for the 
protection of her subjects." Being thus in the performance of a public 
duty, it was alleged, " that he could not be made personally and indi- 
vidually answerable to the laws and tribunals, of a foreign country." 

The court held, however, that the Canadian provincial authorities had 
no inherent right to institute a public war ; nor did such war exist. The 
sovereign power of neither country had characterized the transaction as 
a public war, actual or constructive. If it were such a war, the United 
States might take possession of M'Leod as aprisonei of war ; and there 
would have been no need of this motion. The civil war which England 
was prosecuting against various individuals, had been insisted on as a 
ground of protection. The court admitted, " that the strongest possi- 
ble color for the extraordinary right claimed, was to be derived from 
taking the United States to stand in the attitude of a neutral nation 
with respect to two parties engaged in actual war, England on one side, 
and Van Rensselaer, Durfee and their associated assailants on the other, 
called by Givoiixxs mixed war, being made on one side by public authority, 
and on the other by mere private persons. In such a war, had England 
any right to follow Durfee into the neutral territory of the United 
States? According to the books, she had not. 1 Kent's Com. 119-20. 
Independently of fresh pursuit, no writer on the laws of nations had 
ever ventured the assertion, that one of two belligerents could law- 
fully do any hostile act against another upon neutral ground. All right- 
ful power of M'Leod and his associates to harm any one, ceased the 
moment they entered a country with which their sovereign was at peace. 

Much had been said by the prisoner's counsel about the hardship of 
treating soldiers as criminals, who were obliged to obey their sovereign. 
The court said the rule was the same in respect to the soldier as to any 
other agent bound to obey the process or command of a superior. A 
sheriff is obliged to execute a man regularly sentenced to capital execu- 
tion ii. this state But should he execute a man in Canada under such 



TRIAL OF m'lEOD. 717 

sentence, he would be a murderer. A soldier in time af war between us 
and England might be compelled, by an order from our government, to 
enter Canada, and fight and kill her soldiers. But should coufrress pass 
an act compelling him to do so on any exigency in time of peace, if he 
should obey, and kill a man, he would be guilty of murder. 

This point was strengthened by the citation of numerous authorities ; 
and other arguments of the prisoner's counsel were duly considered. 
The court decided that the prisoner must be remanded to take his trial 
in the ordinary forms of law. 

At the extra session, (June, 1841,) the subject was discussed in both 
houses of congress. The discussion seems to have partaken in some 
degree of a party character, notwithstanding the disclaimers of speakers 
of being influenced hj party feelings. The British minister (Mr. Fox) 
having informed our government that the transaction in which M'Leod 
was concerned had been avowed by his government as an authorized and 
public act, and that he was instructed to demand the release of M'Leod, 
who, for the performance of a public duty, could not be individually 
answerable to the laws of a foreign country, our secretary of state, (Mr. 
Webster,) took the ground that, by this lavowal, the British government 
had become responsible for the offense of M'Leod, who had acted under 
the orders of that government ; and that he should be discharged. 

In the senate, Mr. Buchanan maintained the opinion subsequently 
given by the supreme court of New York, as above stated, that the act 
of M'Leod was an offense against the laws of New York, for which he 
was individually responsible. Mr. Forsyth, Mr. "Webster's predecessor, 
had, in his correspondence with the British minister, held that the avowal 
of the act of M'Leod, if it should be made, would not exculpate him ; 
and it would, at the same time, also implicate the British government 
in bis guilt. In connection with the demand for the release of M'Leod, 
Mr. Fox had entreated the president " to take into his most deliberate 
consideration the serious nature of the consequences which must ensue 
from a rejection of this demand." Mr. Buchanan thought Mr. Webster 
had done wrong in giving an answer to Mr. Fox, until this threat had 
been withdrawn or explained. He had not displayed sufficient decision 
and firmness. 

Mr. B., to establish the responsibility of both the British government 
and M'Leod, quoted Vattel, as follows: " But if the nation or its chief 
approves aud ratifies the act of the individual, it then becomes a public 
concern, and the injured party is then to consider the nation as the real 
author of the injury, of which the citizen was perhaps only the instru- 
ment." " If the offended state has in her power the individual who has 
done the injury, she may, without scruple, bring him to justice and 



718 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

punish him. If he has escaped and returned to his own country, she 
ought to apply to his sovereign to have justice done in the case." 

If this doctrine was incorrect, said Mr. B., to what consequences would 
we be forced ? A British marauder on this side of the line is seized'in 
the very act. We are to wait until we can ascertain whether his govern- 
ment recognizes his criminal act before we can punish him for violating 
our laws. If it does, the jail door is thrown open, the offender, perhaps 
murderer, takes his flight to Canada, and we must settle the question with 
the British government. Such, he said, was the doctrine of that govern- 
ment and of our own secretary of state. This principle would lead to a 
war with that power. In a state of war, captured invaders of our territory 
would be treated as prisoners of war. But in time of peace, a man thus 
taken could not be made a prisoner of war. M'Leod, however, was 
not to be punished under our laws, if guilty, lest we should offend the 
majesty of England. The laws of New York were to be nullified, and 
the murderer was to run at large. 

Mr. Rives replied to Mr. Buchanan. He said this unwarrantable out- 
rage had been committed in December, 1837, and aroused the public 
indignation. Our minister at London, (Mr. Stevenson,) under the 
instructions of his government, represented the subject to the British 
government, to obtain a " disavowal and disapproval of the act, and also 
such redress as the nature of the case required." Notwithstanding the 
enormity of the outrage, the senator's political friends, the late adminis- 
tration, in whom he thinks there was no want of energy in prosecuting 
the demand for redress, slept over this national injury, till March, 1841, 
when they went out of power. So profound had been the slumber, that 
lord John Russell had stated in the house of commons, that the 
complaint of the American government had been, for a long period, 
considered as dropped. When, in 1839, Mr. Stevenson wrote to Mr. 
Forsyth to know if he should renew the subject, Mr. F. replied No : 
" the president expects, from the tone of Mr. Fox's conversation, that the 
British government will answer your application in the case without much 
further delay." But no answer was given. All this while, the destruc- 
tion of the Caroline stood unexplained and unavowed by the British 
government ; and there was nothing of a conclusive nature to determine, 
whether it was to be viewed as an authorized act of an individual, or as 
the public act of the British authorities. In this state of things M'Lcod, 
in November last, (1840,) came into the state of New York, and, having, 
from his idle, and, as is now universally believed, false boasts, incurred 
the suspicion of having been an actor in that scene, he was arrested and 
indicted. In December, Mr. Fox demanded the release of M'Lcod on 
the ground that the destruction of the Caroline was a public act. The 



TRIAL jF m'lEOD. 719 

demand was refused, because the government of the Uuitec.. States had 
no right to interfere with the judicial tribunals of New York ; and the 
recognition of the destruction of the boat as a public act, had not been 
communicated to our government by any person authorized to make the 
admission. Mr. Fox stated to Mr. Forsyth, that he was not authorized 
to pronounce the decision of her majesty's government upon the remon- 
strance of the United States against the act in question. 

On the 12th of March, eight days after the inauguration of president 
Harrison, Mr. Fox informed Mr. Webster that he had been instructed 
to avow the act as authorized by his government, and again demanded 
the release of M'Leod. Mr. Rives defended the doctrine of the admin- 
istration, that the act having been recognized as a public act, the indi- 
vidual was not answerable ; and he controverted the opinion of Mr. 
Buchanan, that the principle was applicable only to a formal and declared 
war. He read from Vattel a passage relating to the case of an unjust 
war : " It is the duty of subjects to suppose" the orders of their sover- 
eign '-just and wise," &c. "When, therefore, they have lent their 
assistance in a war which is afterwards found to be unjust, the sovereign 
alone is guilty. He alone is bound to repair the injuries. The sub- 
jects, and in particular the military, are innocent ; they have acted only 
from a necessary obedience." " Grovernment would be impracticable, if 
every one of its instruments were to weigh its commands." 

Mr. E,. considered the ground taken by our government as highly hon- 
orable. He said : " The destruction of the Caroline being at length 
avowed as a public act, the administration could not but feel that it was 
unworthy of the character of the nation, to dignify a miserable and 
subordinate instrument who may have been employed in it, by making 
him the selected object of national vengeance." The principle of ex- 
empting individuals in such cases, he said, was founded in reason and 
humanity, and recognized by the universal practice of civilized nations. 
" What, then, did it become a high minded and honorable government to 
do under these circumstances ? Frankly and unreservedly to admit the 
principle — to put itself in the right — and to do whatever should devolve oi: 
it as a moral and responsible power, to fulfill and maintain the right 
It had a higher game — a nobler mission — than to make war upoi 
M'Leod." Mr. R. also adverted to what Mr. Buchanan had denominated 
a menace in the communication of Mr. Fox. It was remarkable that 
language almost identical, in a letter from Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth, had 
not aroused the jealous sensibilities of the gentleman. Said Mr. Fox : 
" I can not but see the very grave dad serious consequences that must 
ensue, if, besides the injury already inflicted upon Mr. M'Leod, of a 
vexatious and unjust imprisonment, any further ^arm may be do'^*? him 



20 THE AMEraCAN STATESMAN. 

in the progress of this extraordinary proceeding." But I must say that 
punctilios like these are not of substance sufficient iu my opinion, to 
occupy, in this age of the world, the grave discussions of a body like the 
senate of the United States. The calm dignity of conscious strength is 
not prone to be astute in imagining or suspecting insult. 

Mr. E,. added, that the honor of the country would not be compro- 
mised by those to whose keeping it had been intrusted. The president 
had announced, as the maxims of his policy toward foreign powers, to 
render justice to all, submitting to injustice from none ; esteeming it 
" his most imftrative duty to see that the honor of the country shall 
sustain no bleinish.^^ And these sentiments found a faithful echo in the 
letter of the secretary of state to Mr. Fox : " This republic does not 
wish to disturb the tranquillity of the world. Its object is peace, its 
policy peace. But still it is jealous of its rights, and among others, 
and most especially, of the right of the absolute immunity of its territory 
from aggression abroad ; and these rights it is the duty and determina- 
tion of this government fully and at all times to maintain, while it will 
as scrupulously refrain from infringing on the rights of others." 

Mr. Choate followed on the same side, and was replied to by Mr. 
Calhoun, who contended, that the authority or sanction of his govern- 
ment did not exempt an individual from responsibility to the injured 
government, even in case of war. But if gentlemen should succeed in 
making the attack on the Caroline an act of war, it would avail them 
nothing in their attempt to defend the demand of Mr. Fox, or the con- 
cession of Mr. Webster. If it were war, M'Lood would be a prisoner 
of war, and forfeit his liberty ; and his government would have no right 
to demand his release. 

In the house, a debate arose upon a resolution offered by Mr. Floyd, 
of New York, proposing an inquiry into the objects and result of a visit 
of the attorney-general of the United States to the state of New York, 
in reference to the trial of M'Lcod. Mr. Adams dissented from the 
opinion of the supreme court of New York, delivered by Judge Cowen. 
The great and important question with other nations in relation to this 
affair was, " Who was right, and who was wrong ? Who struck the 
first blow ?" He held, that the persons connected with the Caroline had 
committed an act of war against the British government. Nor did he 
subscribe to the opinion that every nation goes to war on issuing a declar- 
ation or proclamation of war. Nations often wage war for years, without 
issuing any declaration ; and the question was not here upon a declara- 
tion of war, but acts of war. In the judgment of impartial men of other 
nations, ive would be held as a nation responsible; and the Caroline would 
^e considered in a state of war against Great Britain — the worst kind cf 



TRIAL OF m'lEOD. 721 

war — to sustain an insurrection. There was very little disguise about 
this expedition : this vessel was there for the purposes of hostility against 
the Canadian government. What was the steamboat about ? What had 
she been doing ? What was she to do the next morning ? And what 
ought you to do ? You have reparation to make for all the men and 
for all the arms and implements of war we had transported and were 
going to transport to the other side, to foment and instigate rebellion in 
Canada. 

Mr. Adams defended the course of the administration. He said that, 
in negotiation, the United States would be held responsible for the per- 
sonal safety of M'Leod. He approved the instructions given to the 
attorney-general when sent to New York, and which averred, that, 
" whether the process be criminal or civil, the fact of having acted under 
public authority, and in obedience to lawful superiors, must be regarded 
as a valid defense ; otherwise individuals would be holden responsible 
for injuries resulting from acts of government, and even from the opera- 
tions of public war." It was true the British government had been 
given to understand, that since the avowal that M'Leod had acted under 
authority he must be ultimately released or surrendered. " And what 
then ?" said Mr. A. " Is it not so ? Why, sir, Indian savages — canni- 
bals, to whom revenge is the first of virtues — accept of ransom for the 
blood of their relatives slain ; and is it for a Christian nation, in cold 
blood, four years after a defensive irregularity of border war, provoked 
by their own people, to hold a man responsible to their own municipal 
law for murder, because the life of a man was lost in a nocturnal foray, 
authorized by the public authorities, civil and military, of the country 
in whose defense it was undertaken and achieved ? Sir, there is not a 
civilized country on earth but would cry shame upon us for carrying 
such barbarian principles into practice. * * * j ask every member 
of this house to put himself in the position of a prisoner in a foreign 
land for an act done by the orders of his government — for the burning 
of a boat, or the killing of men : I ask every man here to put himself 
in the situation of M'Leod, either in Great Britain or in any part of 
the British dominions, and suppose it a matter of negotiation between 
the two governments — what would he say if the British secretary of 
state, from a representation that this was done by the orders of the gov- 
ernment of the United States, and that the nation held itself responsible 
for the act, should say, ' of course ultimately we shall release him ?' 
Now, I would ask, if this would be disgraceful to the British nation." 
Mr. A. rejoiced that the letter of the secretary had calmed the irritation 
and resentment of the British government produced by the inflammatory 
report of the house. It was one of the best papers ever written ; and 
the effect of it upon the nation was to be one of glory and not of reproach. 



722 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The resolution was laid on the table, 109 to 70. 

This question was also discussed in the legislature of N(!w York, on a 
resolution offered by Mr. Swackhamer, of New York, requesting the 
governor to communicate to the house certain information in reference 
to the case of M'Leod. 

Mr. Hoffman justified, under the British government, the attack 
made upon the Caroline. The rebels, he said, had gained possession of 
Navy Island ; the drafts of men there had been made from the United 
States ; the officers in command were over our citizens. By the national 
law, the sovereign whose territory was endangered had a right to repel 
the danger ; and if in so doing he should momentarily pass the line 
between the two countries, it must be the subject of negotiation. He 
would ask where the man was in this state who would not have obeyed 
a s'milar order from the local authorities. In case of sedition or rebel- 
lion in this state, — if a boat were seen daily plying from the Canadas 
furnishing those in arms with the means of warfare, and orders should 
be issued by the authorities of this state to destroy that boat, who would 
for a moment refuse to obey that order ? He moved to refer the reso- 
lution with instructions to bring in a bill " to enter a nolle prosequi on 
the indictment, and to grant M'Leod a safe conduct to his sovereign." 

The trial of M'Leod took place at Utica in October, 1841 ; a special 
term of the circuit court having been appointed by the legislature for 
that purpose. The trial occupied more than a week. The jury, after 
a retirement of about twenty minutes, returned with a verdict of not 
GUILTY. There was testimony identifying him as one of the party who 
destroyed the Caroline and killed Durfee ; and there were several wit- 
nesses to whom M'Leod had boasted that he had " killed one d d 

Yankee." From the testimony of the defense, however, it appeared 
that he was during the whole of that night in Canada. 

The question as to the responsibility of the participators in the 
destruction of the Caroline and the murder of Durfee, to the laws of 
the state of New York, did n it end with the trial. A review of the 
opinion of Justice Cowen, by Judge Tallmadge, of the superior court 
of the city of New York, was subsequently published, in which that 
opinion is controverted, and the doctrine of Webster, Adams, and 
others is supported. Chancellor Kent, Judge Ambrose Spencer, and 
other eminent jurists, expressed their concurrence in the doctrines of 
this review. A review of Judge Tallmadgc's review appeared in the 
Democratic Review, maintaining the opinion of the supreme court, as 
delivered by Justice Cowen on the trial of the habeas coi-pus. Those 
who desire to investigate this question are referred, for the first review, 
t,o 26 Wendell ; for the latter, to 3 Hill, p. 635. 



THE SLAVE SCHOONER AMISTAD. 7Sl3 



CHAPTER LIX. 

THE SLAVE SCHOONER AMISTAD. CAPTIVES LIBERATE!.. MEETING OP 

THE TWENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. SEATS OF NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CON- 
TESTED. FLORIDA WAR. 

In August, 1839, a vessel lying near the coast of Connecticut, under 
suspicious circumstances, was captured by Lieut. Gredney, of the brig 
Washington, and taken into New London- This vessel was a schooner, 
called L'Amistad, bound from Havana to Guanaja, Port Principe, with 
fifty-four blacks and two passengers on board. The former, four nights 
after they were out, rose and murdered the captain and three of the 
crew ; then took possession of the vessel with the intention of returning 
to Africa. The two passengers were Jose Ruiz and Pedro Monte;^, the 
former owning forty-nine of the slaves, and most of the cargo ; the latter 
claiming the remaining five, all children from seven to twelve years of 
age, and three of them females. These two men were saved to navigate 
the vessel. Instead, however, of steering for the coast of Africa, they 
navigated in a different direction, whenever they could do so without the 
knowledge of the Africans. It appeared that the slaves had been pur- 
chased at Havana, soon after their arrival from Africa. Cingues, who 
was the son of an African chief, and leader of the revolt, with thirty- 
eight others of the revolters, was committed for trial ; and the three 
girls were put under bonds to appear and testify. 

A demand was soon after made upon our governmeiit by the acting 
Spanish minister in this country, for the surrender of the Amistad, cargo, 
and alleged slaves, to the Spanish authorities. 

The children were brought before the circuit court of the United 
States, held at Hartford, in September, on a writ of habeas corpus, with 
a view to their discharge, on the ground that they were not shaves ; proof 
of which was given by two of the prisoners who testified that the children 
were native Africans. The discharge was resisted by Mr. Ingersoll, 
counsel for the Spanish claimants, who stated, that the persons were libeled 
in the district by Capt. Gedney, his officers and crew, as property ; they 
were also libeled by the Spanish minister as the slave property of Span- 
ish subjects, and as such ought to be delivered up ; and they were libeled 
by the district attorney, that they might be delivered up to the executive, 
in order to their being sent to their native country, if it should be found 
right that they should be so sent. The counsel presumed that this (cir- 
cuit) court would not, under this writ, take this case out of the legiti- 
mate jurisdiction of the district court, as, if the decision of that court 



724 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

should not be satisfactory, the matter could be brought before this court 
by appeal. 

[For the information of some readers, it may be necessary here to say 
that the word libel, as used in courts of admiralty, signifies "a declara- 
tion or charge in writing, exhibited in court, particularly against a ship 
or goods, for a violation of the laws of trade or revenue." Also vessels 
captured in time of war and claimed as prizes, are thus libeled. When 
a prize is brought into a port, the captors make a writing called libel, 
stating the facts of the capture, and praying that the property may be 
condemned ; and this paper is filed in the proper court. If it shall ap- 
pear on trial that the property captui'ed was subject to condemnation, it 
is distributed among the captors.] 

It v.as maintained by Mr. Baldwin, counsel for the children, that they 
had been feloniously and piratically captured in Africa — contrary to the 
laws of Spain — consequently, they were not property, and therefore the 
district court was ousted of its jurisdiction. The district judge had not 
issued his warrant to take these individuals. This he could not do witl;- 
out first judicially finding that they were property. The warrant issued by 
his honor to the marshal was to take the vessel and other articles of 
personal property. These children were not, and never could become 
personal property. They formed a part of a number of persons, who, 
born free, were captured and reduced to slavery. They had come here, 
not as slaves, but as free ; and we are asked first to make them slaves, 
and then give them up to the Spaniards. But we can only deliver up 
property ; and before they can be delivered up, they must be proved to 
\)Q property. Mr. Staples, associate counsel for the Africans, said, Moutoz 
had the hardihood to dome into a court of justice in our free country, and 
in contravention of our treaty with Spain, to ask the surrender of these 
human beings, when the very act he desired us to countenance, would, by ' 
his own sovereign's decree, have subjected him to forfeiture of all his 
goods and to transportation ; and he would himself have become a slave. 
This was a case of felony ; and felony could not confer property. 

The next day, a second writ of habeas corpus having been issued, all 
the Africans were before the court. The counsel recapitulated the facts 
of the case, and again denied the jurisdiction of the district court. As 
a court of admiralty, it could do nothing with them but as property ; 
and the applicant must first prove them to be property. Some of them were 
taken on shore ; these were within the jurisdiction of the common law. 

As to the libel of the district attorney at the suit of the Spanish min- 
ister — what had the minister to do with it ? The parties claimed were 
neither fugitives nor criminals. The district attorney libels them and 
prays that they may be kept in custody, that, if at some future time it 



CAPTIVES LlBERATED ?5S 

should appear that they had been brought hither illegally, they might be 
delivered up to th; president to be sent back to their own country. The 
counsel then asked their discharge. He said they should be taken care 
of (as it was right they should be) by the state of Connecticut. 

The counsel for the claimants followed in support of the jurisdiction 
of the district court ; and the district attorney in support of his libel 
on behalf of the executive. 

The decision of the court (Judge Thompson) in relation to the motion 
of the prisoners' counsel to discharge the Africans, was to deny the motion^ 
as the question before the court was simply as to the jurisdiction of the 
district court over this subject. If the seizure was made upon the high 
eeas — and the grand jury said it was made a mile from the shore — then 
the matter was right — fully before the court for this district. If, as was 
supposed by the counsel on both sides, the seizure was made within the 
district of New York, the court could endeavor to ascertain the locality. 
To pass upon the question of property, belonged to the district court. 
Should either party be dissatisfied with the decision of that court, an ap- 
peal could be taken to the circuit court, and afterwards to the supreme 
court of the United States. 

The court said the question now disposed of had not been affected by 
the manner in which the grand jury had disposed of the case upon the 
directions of the court. They had only found that there had been no 
criminal offense committed which was cognizable by the courts of the 
United States. Murder committed on board a foreign vessel with a 
foreign crew and foreign papers, was not such an offense ; but an offense 
against the laws of the country to which the vessel belonged. But if 
the offense had been against the law of nations, this court would have 
jurisdiction. The murder of the captain of the Amistad was not a 
crime against the law of nations. 

The district court was opened ; and the judge said he should order the 
district attorney to investigate the facts to ascertain where the seizure 
was made ; and then adjourned the court to November. 

At the adjourned term of the court in November, it was pleaded in 
behalf of the Africans, that neither the constitution, laws, or any treaty 
of the United States, nor the law of nations, gave this court any juris- 
diction over their persons ; they therefore prayed to be dismissed. The 
counsel for Capt. Gedney denied that the Africans had anything to do 
with the question now before the court. It was a claim for salvage ; and 
the parties were the libelants (Gedney and the other officers and crew of 
the Washington,) and Ruiz and Montez, owners of the vessel and cargo. 
Gedney and others claimed salvage fo' saving the property of these 
Spaniards, who did not resist the claim. 



726 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The district attorney presented a claim in behalf of the United States 
for the vessel, cargo and negroes, -with a view to their restoration to their 
owners, who were Spanish subjects, without hinderance or detention, as 
required by our treaty with Spain. 

The interpreter being absent and sick, the court adjourned to New 
Haven in January next. 

In January, the decision of Judge Judson was given. The blacks 
who murdered the captain and others on board the schooner, were set 
free. But if they had been whites, they would have been tried and 
executed as pirates. The schooner having been proved to have been 
taken on the " high seas," the jurisdiction of the court was established. 
The libel of Gedney and others had been properly filed, and the seizers 
were entitled to salvage, Ruiz and Montez had established no title to 
the Africans, who were undoubtedly Bozal negroes, or negroes recently 
imported from Africa in violation of the laws of Spain. The demand 
of restoration made by the Spanish minister, that the question might be 
tried in Cuba, was refused, as by Spanish laws the negroes could not be 
enslaved ; and therefore they could not properly be demanded for trial. 
One of them a Creole, and legally a slave, and wishing to be returned 
to Havana, a restoration would be decreed under the treaty of 1795. 
These Africans were t.i be delivered to the president, under the act of 
1819, to be transported to Africa. 

An appeal was taken from the decree of the district judge to the cir- 
cuit court, judge Thompson presiding, who affirmed that decree. And 
the government of the United States, at the instance of the Spanish 
minister, here appealed to the supreme court of the United States. That 
court affirmed the judgment of the district court of Connecticut in every 
respect, except as to sending the negroes back to Africa : they were dis- 
charged as free men. 

A deep interest seems to have been taken by the British government 
in the case of these Africans. Their minister in this country, Mr. Fox, 
was instructed to intercede with our government in their behalf; and 
their minister in Spain was directed to ask for their liberty if they 
should be delivered to the Spaniards at the request of the Spanish minis- 
ter at Washington, and should be sent to Cuba ; and to urge Spain to 
enforce the laws against Montez and Ruiz and any other Spanish sub- 
jects concerned in the transaction in question. 

A disposition was manifested on the part of our government to effect 
the delivery of the captives to the Spanish authorities, at Cuba, to be 
there dealt with according to the laws of Spain. The friends of the 
Africans in this country deprecated such event, apprehending that the 
freedom of the negroes might not be obtained through tlie Spanish tri- 
bunals. 



CAPTIVES LIBERATED. 727 

On the lOtli of February, 1840, probably suspecting unfairness on the 
part of the administration, a resolution was offered, requesting the pre- 
sident to communicate to the house copies of any demand by the Spanish 
government for the surrender of the Africans, and of the correspon- 
dence between the state department and the Spanish minister and the 
district attorney of the United States in the judicial district of Con- 
necticut. 

On the 20th of January, 1841, while the question of the prisoners 
was still pending in the supreme court of the United States, the British 
minister addressed to Mr. Forsyth, secretary of state, a letter repre- 
senting the interest felt by. his government in the case of the African 
negroes, mentioning the obligation of Spain, by treaty with Great Britain, 
to prohibit the slave trade from the 30th of May, 1820, and the mutual 
engagements of the United States and Great Britain, by the 10th 
article of the treaty of Ghent, to use their endeavors for the entire aboli- 
tion of the slave trade. And as the freedom of the negroes may depend 
upon the action of the United States government, he expresses the hope, 
that the president would find himself empowered to take such measures 
in their behalf, as should secure to them their liberty. 

Mr. Forsyth, in his answer of the 1st of February, says in substance, 
that the introduction of the negroes into this country did not proceed 
from the wishes or direction of our government. The vessels and the 
negroes had been demanded by the Spanish minister, and the grounds 
of that demand were before the judicial tribunals. He tells Mr. Fox 
that our government is not willing to erect itself into a tribunal between 
Spain and Great Britain ; that he, (Mr. Fox,) had doubtless observed 
from the correspondence published in a congressional document, that the 
Spanish minister intended to restore the negroes, should their delivery 
to his government be ordered, to the island of Cuba, to be placed under 
the protection of the government of Spain. There was the proper place, 
and there would be a full opportunity, to discuss questions arising under 
the Spanish laws and the treaties of Spain with Great Britain. 

The decision of the supreme court was awaited with deep interest by 
all who sympathized with the negroes. Mr. Adams, who had not argued 
a case for thirty or forty years before that court, made a very elaborate 
as well as able argument in their behalf. The opinion of the court was 
pronounced by Mr. Justice Story, early in March, 1841, affirming the 
decision of the district court in every particular, except that which 
ordered the negroes to be delivered to the president to be transported 
to Africa. The court reversed this part of the decree, and ordered the 
cause to be remanded to the circuit court which had affirmed the same, 
with directions to enter in lieu thereof, that the negroes be declared free, 
and be discharged from suit. 



728 THE AMERICAN STA1E8MAN. 

The 26th congress assembled on the 2d of December, 1839; oa or 
during which day, every member of the house of representatives was 
present, except Mr. Thomas Kempshall, of Rochester, N. Y., who was 
necessarily detained at home. This unusually full attendance on the first 
day of the session was doubtless caused by the anxiety of both parties 
in relation to the election of speaker. The gains of the whigs had been 
such as to render it doubtful which party would control the action of the 
house during this congress. This doubt was increased by the fact that 
there were no less than six members returned whose seats were to be 
contested, viz. : Mr. Naylor, of Pennsylvania, whose seat was claimed 
by Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, and five of the six members from New-Jersey. 
The returned members were all whigs. The contestants, also, were all 
said to be in attendance. 

At twelve o'clock, the clerk of the last house, Hugh A. Garland, in 
conformity with the former practice, commenced calling the roll of the 
members elect. Having called the members from the New England 
states and the state of New York, and one of the members, Mr. Ran- 
dolph, from New Jersey, he paused, and proposed, if it were the pleasure 
of the house, to pass over the names of the five whose right to seats 
was to be contested, until the members of the remaining states should 
have been called. A stormy and disorderly debate ensued, which con- 
tinued several days, during which time several propositions were unsuc- 
cessfully made. It was insisted by the opposition members, that, accord- 
ing to custom, the claimants having regular certificates of election, should 
be admitted to seats until a formal investigation could be had. The 
difficulty of determining upon any course of proceeding consisted, in a 
great measure, in there not having been a quorum of members called, 
and in the undetermined question whether those who claimed the con- 
tested seats should be permitted to vote. 

Mr. Ogden Hoffman, of New York, insisted that it was the duty of 
the clerk to call the names of members having the regular legal certifi- 
cates of election. He asked the clerk by what right he had called his 
own (Mr. H's) name. If the laws of New Jersey required, as proof of 
a man's election, a certificate, signed by the governor, that he had been 
duly elected, would the clerk dare insert in his roll the name of one not 
bringing such certificate ? Let the law of New Jersey be read ; they 
had no right, on the threshold, to pass it over and disregard its pro- 
visions — to set aside or postpone the claims of men presenting themselves 
as the representatives of a sovereign state, and bringing in their hands 
the legal proofs of their official character and rights. 

Mr. Halsted, of New Jersey, demanded that his name should be 
called ; and, in the course of his remarks, he read that section of the 



SEATS OF NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CONTESTED. 72?^ 

law of his state which makes the governor's certificate the evidence of 
election, which, he insisted, tHe clerk was bound to receive as prima 
facie evidence of his right to sit there. At length in the midst of great 
confusion, and after much altercation with the clerk, Mr. Rhett, of South 
Carolina, moved that Lewis Williams, of North Carolina, the oldest 
member of the house, be appointed temporary chaii-man. Mr. Williams 
objected, as such proceeding was out of form. Mr. Rhett then modified 
his motion by substituting for the name of Mr. Williams that of John 
Quincy Adams. Mr. R. himself put the question, which was carried 
apparently by a large majority ; and Mr. Adams took the chair. 

Mr. Wise offered a resolution, that the clerk proceed with the call of 
members in the usual way, calling such as held the regular and legal 
commissions. The next day, (December 6,) Mr. Rhett moved to lay 
the resolution of Mr. Wise on the table, with a view to enable him to 
offer one, that the house proceed to call the names of members whose 
right to seats is not disputed ; and then, before a speaker should be 
elected, hear and determine the claims to the contested seats. One of 
the tellers asked the chair which of the ten gentlemen from New Jersey 
claiming seats they were to admit to pass between the tellers. The chair 
replied that, according to the rule, those only who held commissions in 
conformity with the laws of the state of New Jersey, were entitled to 
vote. Mr. Vanderpoel, of New York, appealed from this decision of 
the chair, which he called " a gross act of usurpation." It was virtually 
declaring that the gentlemen from New Jersey should vote in their own 
cases, contrary to the rule of order which forbade members voting on 
questions in the event of which they were immediately and particularly 
interested. The chair replied that the rule did not apply to the present 
case, as it was not the representatives that were concerned, but their con- 
stituents and their state. 

An animated debate here followed, in which many members partici- 
pated, and in the course of which three New York members, Messis. 
Hoffman, Granger, and Vanderpoel came into a somewhat sharp col- 
lision ; the two first named gentlemen sustaining the decision of the 
chair, that the members entitled to vote were those who had certificates 
of election. Mr. Granger referred to the memorable contest — familiar 
to politicians in the state of New York — between two claimants to a 
Beat in the legislature, Allen and Fellows, in 1816, the former having re- 
ceived the certificate of election, and being allowed the seat until the 
house was orgarized and certain other party questions were disposed of. 
By the vote of this one member, the party scales were turned ; and after 
the main objects of the party had been effected, the contesting member 
was admitted to the seat. 



730 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

On the 10th of December, the decision of the chair was negatived, 

114 to 108. The announcement of the result created great confusion in 
the house. Mr. Wise, of the opposition, now rose and said, that, as the 
gentlemen who held the governor's certificate were denied the right to 
vote, he moved that the other claimants, who had the certificate of the 
secretary of state, be allowed to vote. Mr. Rhett moved to lay this 
motion on the table. Mr. Wise inquired if his motion was in order, 
Mr. Adams (the chairman) decided that it was ; and observed " that the 
state of New Jersey cannot he deprived of her rejrresentation in this 
house, and shall not be, so long as I have a seat as chairman of the 
meeting. ''"' The question to be decided was, which set of members 
should be allowed to vote — the members must now decide that, [The 
reporter here says " a scene of confusion here followed which it would 
be difficult to describe, even if we had room."] 

Bythe previous question, a vote was then forced upon Mr. Rhett's motion 
to lay upon the table Mr. Wise's resolution, that the New Jersey members 
having the governor's certificate be allowed their seats. The result was, 

115 ayes, 114 noes, but the chairman voting in the negative, there was 
an equal division, and the motion was therefore lost. Mr. Naylor having 
voted, Mr. Smith, of Maine, questioned his right to vote. Mr. N. said 
he had the governor's certificate of election and the people's, and no man 
had a right to question his right to vote. Additional confusion followed, 
which was terminated by a motion to adjourn: ayes, 116; noes, 113; 
three of the New Jersey claimants and three of the certified members 
voting upon the question. 

The next day, (December 11,) Mr, Naylor's right to vote in organizing 
the house, was decided in the negative: 119 to 112; and the right of 
Mr. Ingersoll's negatived, by 158 noes, ayes, none. The right of the 
certified members to vote was denied, the question being taken upon the 
right of each separately ; a part of each set of the New Jersey claimants 
voting. Mr. Wise's resolution, that the New Jersey members be 
enrolled and take part in organizing the house, was negatived: ayes, 115; 
noes 118; Mr. Randolph alone from New Jersey voting. Mr. Rhett 
then proposed a resolution, that the clerk call the names of all the mem- 
bers whose seats were uncontested, and that the members thus called 
should be a quorum to settle the claims of members — Mr. Naylor's seat 
not to be included in the contested seats — and that the quorum should 
decide the contested elections before proceeding to the election of a 
speaker. 

The next day, (12th,) the clerk completed the calling of the roil of the 
house. Mr. Randolph then sent to the clerk's table a paper which he 
wished to be read, and which, after some opposition, was permitted to 



SEATS OF NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CONTESTED. 731 

be done. Mr. Randolph then moved that this paper — which proved to 
be a protest of the excluded claimants — be entered upon the journal of 
the house. After a most bitter denunciation of the paper and the gentle- 
man who presented it, by Mr. Bynum, of North Carolina, and some far- 
ther confused debate, the question to enter the protest upon the journal 
was negatived: ayes, 114; noes, 117. After a variety of other proceed- 
ings during this day and the nest, a direct vote was taken upon a propo- 
sition of Mr. Wise, that the credentials of the certified members from 
New Jersey were sufficient to entitle them to take their seats in the 
house, leaving the question of contested election to be afterwards decided 
by the house : and the result was, an equal division, 117 to 117. So 
the resolution was lost. 

On the day following, (14th,) after sundry proceedings, the members 
proceeded to the election of speaker, viva voce, according to the rule 
adopted the day before. The name of Mr. Adams having been called, 
he answered : " Reserving all my rights of objecting hereafter to this 
election as unconstitutional and illegal, I vote for John BelV A simi- 
lar protest was made by Mr. Wise. Before the result of the first ballot 
was announced, the certified New Jersey members successively demanded, 
that having been legally returned, their votes should be recorded for Mr. 
Bell ; which, of course, was not done. On this ballot, John W. Jones, 
of Virginia received 113 votes : John Bell, 102 ; scattering 20. On the 
6th trial, Jones received 39; Bell, 21; Dixon H. Lewis, of Alabama, 
79 ; Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, 63. The house then adjourned to 
Monday, {16th,) when after five more ballots had been taken, Mr. Hunter 
was declared elected, having received 119 votes out of 232, and Mr. 
Jones 55. Mr. Hunter, formerly, it is believed, a Jackson man, was now 
with the opposition, but in favor of the sub-treasury. A clerk was chosen 
on the 21st ; and on the 24th, the president's message was delivered. 

On the 28th of February, 1840, the question being still undecided, the 
committee on elections were instructed to report forthwith which five 
of the claimants received the greatest number of lawful votes of the 
whole state, with all the evidence of that fact in their possession. [It 
will be perceived by the reader that representatives were elected in New 
Jersey by general ticket.] A report was accordingly made the 5th of 
March, in favor of the administration members, viz. : Philemon Dicker- 
son, Peter D. Vroom, Daniel B. Ryall, William R. Cooper, and Joseph 
Kille. The majority of the committee concurring in the report, were, 
Messrs. Campbell, of S. C. ; Rives, (Francis E.,) of Virginia, Medill, of 
Ohio ; Brown, of Tennessee ; and Fisher, of N. C 

Mr. Fillmore, of the same committee, moved a resolution, that, as the 
committee had refused to consider evidence referred to them, tending to 



732 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

show certain illegalities in the election, the report be recommitted. Mr. 
Petrikin, of Pa., moved an amendment or substitute declaring the admin- 
istration claimants entitled to take their seats. After several days' 
debate, (March 10,) the resolution with this amendment was adopted, 
111 to 81. 

The minority of the committee, Messrs. Fillmore, Botts, of Va., Crabb, 
of Ala., and Smith, of Conn., published, under date of March 12, an 
address " to the American people," in which they call attention to an ac- 
companying report, entitled, " The suppressed report of the minority of the 
committee on elections on the New Jersey case; presented to the house of 
representatives on the 10th of March, 1840, and, contrary to all prece- 
dent, excluded from the house, (its reception and reading being refused, 
with the previous question pending, and all debate cut off,) by a party 
vote in the negative." This report purports to set forth minutely the 
facts of the case, and the action of the committee, and concludes with 
a protest against what they " conceive to be a most indefensible and 
unlawful proceeding." 

This address and the accompanying report were replied to in an address 
" to the people of the United States," by the members of the majority, 
as private individuals, in which they defend themselves against the 
charges of the minority, and vindicate their report. At a late period of 
the session, (July,) additional testimony having been received, another 
report was made by the majority of the committee, declaring the sitting 
aiembers duly elected; which report was adopted (July 16th): ayes, 
102; noes, 22; a large number of the opposition members declining to 
vote. Many of them had asked to be excused from voting, not having 
had the means of examining the evidence. It filled a volume of 
nearly seven hundred pages — was now for the first time laid before the 
house — and members were to be compelled to decide on an important 
question without being allowed time to read the testimony or to hear 
the opposing claimants. Here this long and exciting controversy ended. 

At the session of 1839-40, the independent treasury was established. 
The subject was again presented to congress by Mr. Van Buren in his 
annual message; and a bill was again reported by Mr. Wright in the 
senate. Having passed that body, the bill was reported in the house on 
the 26th of March. The discussion was, as at former sessions, quite pro- 
tracted, and especially in the house, where it was passed, June 30, by a 
vote of 124 to 107. 

The question then recurring on the title, Mr. Cooper, of Pennsylvania, 
moved to amend it by striking out the present title, and inserting the 
following : " A bill to reduce the value of property, the products of the 
farmer, and the wages of the laborer ; to destroy the indebted portion 



FLORIDA WAR. 733 

of the community, and to place the treasury of the nation in the handa 
of the president."* Mr. Gushing, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the 
amendment so as to read : " An act to enable the public money to be 
drawn from the treasury without appropriation made by law." An angry 
and desultory discussion arose between Mr. Gushing and others ; and 
the house was filled with commotion, and could not be restored to order 
by the speaker, but by the aid of the sergeant-at-arms. The amendments 
were of course rejected. The title under which the bill was reported was 
retained : " An act to provide for the collection, safe-keeping, transfer, 
and disbursement of the public revenue." 

This act required the payment of all duties, taxes, land sales, and all 
other government dues, to be made, one-fourth in specie, after the 30th 
of June, 1840, and an additional one-fourth each successive year, until 
the whole should become payable in specie. It also provided for the 
necessary rooms for the treasurer, and vaults and safes for the moneys, 
and for the appointment of receivers-general ; who, with all other ofl&cers 
receiving public moneys, were required to give bonds, with sureties, for 
the faithful discharge of their duties. It contained such other provisions 
as were deemed necessary to secure the objects expressed in its title. 

The war with the Seminole Indians which had commenced in 1835, 
had not yet been brought to a termination. This small tribe, number- 
ing only about 2000 capable of bearing arms, had for nearly five years 
baffled the attempts of our army to reduce them to submission. In 
1840, a bill was reported to the senate by Mr. Benton, from the com- 
mittee on military afi'airs, to provide for the armed occupation and 
settlement of that part of Florida which was infested by these maraud- 
ing bands of hostile Indians. It was hoped in this way to efi"ect theii 
extirpation, and thus to rid the territory of an enemy whom the govern- 
ment had hitherto been unable to subdue. This bill proposed grants 
of land to settlers, not exceeding ten thousand men able to bear arms, 
three hundred and twenty acres each. The settlements were to be in 
stations, each including not less than forty nor more than one hundred 
men. This bill did not become a law. 

In the winter of 1839-40, it was announced that a pack of blood- 
hounds had been imported from Guba to scent the Indians, and thus aid 
in their capture. The employment of brute beasts as allies against 
savages, was regarded as in the highest degree dishonorable to the gov- 
ernment of a civilized and Ghristian people ; and numerous memorials 
remonstrating against the use of these animals were presented to con- 
gress. On a motion by Mr. Buchanan to refer these petitions to the 
»iiilitary committee, a debate arose, in which Mr. Benton stated, that 
Jiis matter had only been asserted by the opposition newspapers, and 



734 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

that it ought to have been known that the government had expressly 
repudiated the employment of bloodhounds in the war. Mr. Lumpkin, 
of Georgia, thought their use by the people of Florida was justified by 
the frequent murders and the destruction of property committed by the 
Indians. Contradictory accounts were for a time given respecting the 
efficiency of these hounds. After repeated trials, their use was aban- 
doned. 

On the 10th of May, 1842, the senate received a communication from 
the president, (Mr. Tyler,) proposing a different course of measures in 
relation to the Indians in Florida. Their number had been reduced by 
surrender and capture to a few hundred ; less than one hundred of whom 
were warriors, or males capable of bearing arms. The president thought 
the farther pursuit of these miserable beings by a large military force 
as injudicious as unavailing. Their mode of warfare, their dispersed 
condition, and the smallness of their numbers, which increased the diffi- 
culty of finding them in their almost inaccessible hiding places, rendered 
any farther attempt to subdue them by force impracticable, except by 
the employment of the most expensive means. And coinciding with the 
views of the commanding officer there, the governor of the territory, and 
other persons, he had determined to resort to peaceable means, with the 
view of inducing them to a voluntary surrender, and removal to the 
west. He thought it desirable that settlements should be made similar 
to those contemplated by the bill of Mr. Benton, in 1840, providing 
for the occupation of the soil of the frontiers of the territory. An act 
for this purpose was accordingly passed at this session. It ofi'ered to 
any head of a family or any single man over eighteen years of age, able 
to bear arms, and making an actual settlement, one quarter section of 
land, on certain conditions, one of which was that he should reside on 
the same for four years, erect a house fit for habitation, and clear, inclose, 
and cultivate at least five acres of land. 

The war may be considered as having been terminated by this cessa- 
tion of hostilities on the part of the United States. Only a few acts 
of violence were afterwards committed ; and by occasional surrenders 
and removal, the territory was left in the peaceable possession of its white 
inhabitants. Settlements under the act of congress before mentioned, 
were made, in the meantime, with great rapidity. The act was to con- 
tinue in force but one year, during which time the 200,000 acres granted 
by the government were all, or nearly all, taken up. 

The expense of this war, considering the very small number of the 
Indians, was enormous, amounting to about twenty millions of dollars 



PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1840. 735 



CHAPTER LX. 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1840. CLAIMS ON MEXICO. CLOSE OP MR. 

VAN buren's administration. 

The whig national nominating convention met at Harrisburg on the 
4th of December, 1839. James Barbour, of Virginia, presided. On 
the third day, the 6th of December, the nominations were made. Of 
the 254 votes, William Henry Harrison received 148 • Henry Clay, 90; 
and Winfield Scott, 16. Mr. Clay was preferred by a plurality of the 
delegates ; but many of his friends, considering him less available as a 
candidate than Gen. Harrison, consented to the adoption of the latter. 
John Tyler received as a candidate for vice-president, 231 votes, being 
all that were cast. The delegates from Virginia, of whom Mr. Tyler 
was one, at his request, did not ballot for vice-president. The delega- 
tions from the several states balloted separately. All the states were 
represented except South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. 
The convention adjourned on the 4th day of its session. 

The democratic convention was held. at Baltimore, the 5th of May, 
1840, being represented by twenty-one states. Mr. Van Buren, as was 
expected, was unanimously nominated for president. No nomination 
for vice-president was made ; each state being left to make a nomination 
for itself. 

The abolitionists, who had hitherto voted according to their former 
party attachments, now brought into the field candidates of their own. 
A meeting of the Western New York anti-slavery society was held at 
Warsaw in November, 1839, at which was discussed the propriety of 
making nominations; and, although this was not among the objects for 
whi«h the convention had been called, the proposition was adopted. 
James G. Birney, of New York, formerly of Alabama, was nominated 
for president, and Francis J. Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania, for vice-presi- 
dent. 

The presidential canvass of 1840 was unusually spirited. There had 
been during a great part of Mr. Van Buren's administration, a pressure 
in the money market ; and a general depression in business affairs. This 
state of things was ascribed to the interference of the government with 
the currency. The bank of the United States had been destroyed ; and 
-jotwithstanding its capital continued to be employed, under a charter 
•^om the state of Pennsylvania, state bank capital had been enormously 
increased ; having been tripled or quadrupled. Much of the paper 
issued by theso banks had greatly depreciated, and that of many of them 



796 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

had become worthless. In Mississippi, where, in 1830, there was, be- 
sides the branch of the United States bank, but one chartered bank, with 
a capital of less than one million of dollars, in 1838, the chartered 
bank capital of that state had reached upward of sixty millions. The 
excessive issue of bank paper had been followed by its natural result, the 
suspension of specie payments, which was at this time still continued in 
some states, especially in the western and south-western states. And 
where suspension had ceasea, it was necessary for the banks gi'eatly to 
restrict their issues. 

But the whigs found other causes than " experiments " upon the cur- 
rency, to which to attribute the public distress. The lowest rates of du- 
ties contemplated by the compromise tariflF of 1833, had nearly been 
reached ; and for the want of adequate protection, domestic manufac- 
tures had been to a great extent superseded by importations, which were 
draining the country of its specie ; the consequences of which were the 
inability of the banks to supply the business wants of the community, 
and at the same time to diminish the demand for labor. 

This depressed condition of the country contributed essentially to the 
success of the whig party. Many who had approved the policy of the 
administratioD, began to doubt the wisdom of its measures. A still 
greater number, unable to either trace existing evils to their true source, 
or to judge intelligently in relation to any proposed remedy, were dis- 
posed to try a change of policy, under the persuasion that it could not 
well be for the worse. True, the measures of the administration were but a 
continuation of the policy of that which preceded it ; but, although the 
principles of the two administrations were the same, Gen. Jackson and 
Mr. Van Buren were different persons. Although the latter was pledged 
to tread in " the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor," he found it 
impossible to carry with him his popularity. Gen. Jackson was the 
' hero of two wars ;" Mr. Van Buren had never in this way " exposed 
himself to the enemy." No measure of statesmanship could afford him 
half the advantage which his predecessor derived from the single victory 
of New Orleans. Here, his competitor had a vast advantage. He, like 
Gen. Jacksou, had a military fame. He, too, had fought the Indians. 
The battle of Tippecanoe, however inferior, as a military achievement to 
the battle of New Orleans, furnished the whigs with an amount of 
political capital scarcely less than their opponents had found in the 
crowning act of the military career of their former candidate. Log 
cabins were doing for the whig cause what had been done by hickory 
poles in other contests for " the democracy" — controlling the votes of 
thousands who want the disposition or the capacity for intelligent inves- 
tigation. 



PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1840. 737 

Kot the least of the advantages of the whigs in this campaign was, that 
their candidate had been taunted with having dwelt in a " log cabin," 
and used " hard cider" as a beverage. At least they charged upon theit 
opponents the attempt thus to disparage him. Hence, the term " log 
cabin" was seized upon, and became the great talismanic word of the 
party, the effect of which all the arts of the " little magician " were 
insuflScient to counteract. Miniature log cabins were a part of the para- 
phernalia got up to give effect to the mass meetings, which were not 
unfrcquently measured by acres. These rude structures, decorated with 
'coon skins, were also erected of sufl&cient dimensions for the accommo- 
dation of the local assemblages. There was scarcely a city or village 
which was not adorned with an edifice of this description. And the 
number was " legion" of those who traced their conversion to the " new 
light" emitted from these political forums. 

It is, however, believed to be due to the American people to say, that 
thousands who participated in these fantastic exhibitions, would regret 
their recurrence. The idea of having recourse to such measures to pro- 
mote an election, presupposes the lack of that popular intelligence which 
is the boast of our nation, and is made the subject of panegyric by every 
public orator. It is seriously doubted whether any immediate benefit 
secured by such means compensates for their debasing effect upon the 
public mind, or their reflection upon the national dignity. In the pre- 
sent instance, although the majorities were thus doubtless increased, tie 
same general result would have been attained without a resort to the ex 
traordinary measures which appear to be liable to the objections above 
mentioned. 

Mr. Tyler, at an early period of this administration, as will be seen, 
disappointed the expectations, and lost the confidence of the party that 
elected him. He was charged with a gross and wanton violation of hia 
pledges to the party, and of the principles upon which he had been 
elected. Of the grounds of this charge, his former political course may 
help us -to judge. He had been identified with the Virginia school of 
politicians. In 1824, in common with his fellow- citizens of that state, 
he supported Mr. Crawford for president. Preferring, however, Mr. 
Adams to Gen. Jackson, he wrote a letter to Mr. Clay, approving his 
vote in the house of representatives in favor of Mr. Adams. Soon after 
the election of Mr. Adams, he went over with the friends of Mr. Craw- 
ford to the support of Gen. Jackson. He was in favor of a strict con- 
struction of the constitution, and was thei ifore opposed to a tariff foi 
protection, and to internal improvements b} the general government, ap- 
proving Gen. Jackson's vetoes of the Maysville road bill and other simi- 
lar bills. He opposed, when in the senate, the renewal of the charter 

47 



738 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of the bank of the United States. He favored the doctrine of the South 
Carolina nullifiers in relation to state rights ; and turned against Gen. 
Jackson for putting down nullification in that state. He opposed the 
force bill, both by a vehement speech and by his vote. He became 
attached to the Calhoun party in the senate, who united with the whigs 
in opposing the course of the president in assuming the power of con- 
trolling the deposit of the public moneys, although he was opposed to 
the bank on the ground of its unconstitutionality. He voted for Mr. 
Clay's resolutions charging Gen. Jackson with usurpation of power in 
directing the removal of the deposits. Thus far, therefore, Mr. Tyler 
is found to have adhered to the distinctive views of the party opposed 
to the whigs, having separated from his former friends only on the sub- 
treasury and other financial questions. 

He was appointed a delegate to the whig national convention held in De- 
cember, 1839, and expressed, as is said, his preference for Mr. Clay. This 
fact, in connection with subsequent professions or declarations, were re- 
garded as at least an implied pledge of support to the whig party. The 
selection of a candidate for vice-president from the state rights branch of 
the whig party, was a matter of policy ; and as that officer is not intrusted 
with administrative power, entire conformity of his principles with those 
of the whigs was regarded as comparatively unimportant. Their indif- 
ference on this point, however, they soon had occasion to regret. 

Of the electoral votes at the ensuing election, the whig candidates 
received each 234. Mr. Van Buren received 60 ; R. M. Johnson, for 
vice-president, 48 ; L. W. Tazewell, of Virginia, 1 1 ; and James K. 
Polk, 1. 

The claims of the United States upon Mexico for injuries to the per- 
sons and property of our citizens, remained unadjusted. A convention 
was made between the two governments in September, 1838, by which 
it was agreed to refer these claims to a board of commissioners, of whom 
two were to be appointed by each party ; and in case of a difi'erence of 
opinion, the question was to be submitted for decision to the king of 
Prussia, or an arbiter to be appointed by him ; the ratifications to be 
exchanged on or before the lOth of February, 1839. This day passed 
without the performance of this part of the obligation on the part of 
Mexico. Reasons were assigned which were unsatisfactory to the com- 
mittee on foreign relations, to whom this subject had been referred, and 
who reported resolutions to the house, declaring these reasons insuffi- 
cient ; expressing the hope ttat, in view of the unreasonable procrasti- 
nation on the part of Mexicr hitherto, the minister who was about to be 
sent to that country, would press for a speedy settlement of the demands 
so repeatedly but inefi"ectually made ; and declaring the impatient expec- 



CLOSE OF MR. VAN BUREn's ADMINISTRATION. 739 

tatioUjby the house, of the result of the mission, and its determination, 
if it should prove unavailing, to sustain the executive in any ulterior 
measures that might be deemed necessary. 

One of the reasons assigned by Mexico for not presenting to its con- 
gress the convention providing for the settlement of claims, was the 
belief that the king of Prussia would decline the ofi&ce of arbitrator in 
case of the disagreement of the commissioners. The president, in his 
next annual message to congress, December, 1839, considered this rea- 
son unsatisfactory ; but he did not hesitate, in the most conciliatory 
spirit, to receive it in explanation ; and he had consented to a new con- 
vention, for which purpose Mr. Ellis had been directed to repair to 
Mexico; and diplomatic intercourse had been resumed. In 1842, a 
treaty was concluded, the ratifications to be exchanged at Washington, 
within three months from its date, if congress should be in session ; if 
not, then within one month after the commencement of the next session. 
The amount awarded to claimants, as stated by the president in his mes- 
sage in December, 1842, was $2,026,079, leaving a large amount of 
claims, submitted to the board too late for consideration, still to be 
determined. The first payment, $270,000 — the interest on the sum 
awarded — was to be made the 30th of April, 1843. The whole was to 
be paid in five years, quarterly, in gold and silver, in the city of Mexico. 
At the last session of congress under Mr. Van Buren's administra- 
tion, few acts of great importance were passed. 

A new issue of treasury notes was authorized, not to exceed five millions 
at any one time outstanding. The sum of $75,000 was appropriated 
for the survey of that part of the north-eastern boundary line whiel 
separates the states of Maine and New Hampshire from the British pre 
vinces. 

The most prominent characteristic of M-r. Van Buren's administra- 
tion, was its consummation of what was begun by his predecessor — the 
separation of the government from the banks, or, as it has been termed, 
the " divorce of bank and state ;" a policy which existed just long 
enough to prostrate the party which brought it into being ; which expired 
with the elevation of the opposing party — was revived with the restora- 
tion of '' the democracy ;" and has since continued, through changes of 
administration, undisturbed ; having received the general acquiescence 
of the popular will, if not the positive approval of the public judgment, 



740 THE AMERICAN STATESMA; 



CHAPTER LXI. 

INAUGURATION OF GENERAL HARRISON. HIS DEATH. INAUGURATION Oi 

MR. TYLER. EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS. BANK VETOES. DISSOLU 

TION OF THE CABINET. 

General Harrison was inaugurated as president of the United States, 
on the 4th of March, 1841. On no similar occasion, probably, was 
there ever a greater concourse of people, or a more enthusiastic expres- 
sion of popular feeling. The inaugural address was one of more than 
ordinary length. It contains a review of the leading features of our 
political system, points out the evils which have grown out of the 
administration of the government, and what he considered defects in the 
constitution. 

General Harrison apprehended " less danger to our institutions from 
usurpation, by the government, of power not granted by the people, than 
from the accumulation, in one of the departments, of that which was 
assigned to others. Limited as are the powers which have been granted, 
still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism, if concentrated 
in one of the departments. This danger is greatly heightened, as it has 
always been observable, that men are less jealous of encroachments of 
one department upon another, than upon their own reserved rights." 

One of the defects of the constitution, he considered to be the eligi- 
bility of an individual to a reelection as president. One mode of cor- 
rection, however, was in the power of every president — the refusing to 
accept the office for a second term. 

There was also danger to public liberty " from a misconstruction of 
that instrument as it regards the powers actually given." He proceeds 
to apply this remark to the veto. He says : "I can not conceive that, 
by fair construction, any or either of its provisions would be found to 
constitute the president a part of the legislative power. It cannot be 
claimed, from the power to recommend, since, although enjoined as a 
duty upon him, it is a privilege which he holds in common with every 
other citizen. And although there may be something more of confi- 
dence iu the propriety of the measures recommended in the one case than 
in the other, in the obligations of ultimate decision there can be no dif- 
ference. Iu the language of the constitution, * all the legislative powers' 
which it grants ' are vested in the congress of the United States.' It 
would be a solecism in language to say that any portion of these is not 
included in the whole. 



INAUGURATION OF GENERAL HARRISON. 741 

" It may be said, indeed, that the constitution has given to the execu- 
tive the power to annul the acts of the legislative body I y refusing to 
them his assent. So a similar power has necessarily resulted from that 
instrument to the judiciary ; and yet the judiciary forms no part of the 
legislature. There is, it is true, this difference between these grants of 
power : the executive can put his negative upon the acts of the legisla- 
ture, for other than want of conformity to the constitution, while the judi- 
ciary can only declare void those which violate that instrument. But the 
decision of the judiciary is final in such a case, whereas, in every instance 
where the veto of the executive is applied, it may be overcome by a vote 
of two-thirds of both houses of congress. The negative upon the acts 
of the legislative, by the executive authority, and that in the hands of 
one individual, would seem to be an incongruity in our system. Like 
some others of a similar character, however, it appears to be highly expe- 
dient ; and if used only with the forbearance and in the spirit which was 
intended by its authors, it may be productive of great good, and be 
found oae of the best safeguards to the union." 

A provision so apparently repugnant to the leading democratic prin- 
ciple, that the majority should govern, could not, he thinks, have been 
intended by the framers to justify the exercise of this power in the ordi- 
nary course of legislation. He says : " It is preposterous to suppose 
that a thought could for a moment have been entertained, that the presi- 
dent, placed at the capital, in the centre of the country, could better 
understand the wants and wishes of the people, than their own immediate 
representatives, who spend a part of every year among them, living with 
them, often laboring with them, and bound to them by the triple tie of 
Interests, duty, and affection. To assist or control congress, then, in its 
ordinary legislation, could not, I conceive, have been the motive for con- 
ferring the veto power on the president. This argument acquires ad- 
ditional force from the fact of its never having been thus used by the 
first six presidents, and two of them were members of the convention, 
one presiding over its deliberations, and the other having a larger share 
in consummating the labors of that august bod}' than any other person. 
But if bills were never returned to congress by either of the presidents 
above referred to, upon the ground of their being inexpedient, or not as 
well adapted as they might be to the wants of the people, the veto was 
applied upon that want of conformity to the constitution, or because 
errors had been committed from a too hasty enactment." 

One object of the veto power, he presumed, was to secure "a just 
and equitable action of the legislature upon all parts of the union." 
Congress might favor particular classes of people, or local interests. 
" It was proper, therefore, to provide some umpire, from whose situation 



742 THE AMER-JAN STATESMAN. 

and mode of appointment more independence and freedom from such 
influences might be expected. Such a one was afi'orded by the executive 
department, constituted by the constitution. A person elected to that 
high office, having his constituents in every section, state, and sub- 
division of the union, must consider himself bound by the most solemn 
sanctions, to guard, protect, and defend, the rights of all, and of every 
portion, great or small, from the injustice and oppression of the rest. I 
consider the veto power, therefore, given by the constitution to the exe- 
cutive of the United States, solely as a conservative pawer : to be used 
only, 1st, to protect the constitution from violation; 2dly, the people 
from the efiects of hasty legislation, where their will has been probably 
disregarded or not well understood; and, 3rdly, to prevent the effects 
of combinations violative of the rights of the minorities. In reference 
to the second of these objects, I may observe that I consider it the right 
and privilege of the people to decide disputed points of the constitution, 
arising from the general grant of power to congress to carry into effect 
the powers expressly given. And I believe, with Mr. Madison, ' that 
repeated recognitions under varied circumstances, in acts of the legisla- 
tive, executive, and judicial branches of the government, accompanied 
by indications in different modes of the concurrence of the general will 
of the nation, afford to the president sufficient authority for his con- 
sidering such disputed points as settled.'" 

He adverts to the power of the president " as the sole distributor of 
all the patronage of the government. The framers of the constitution 
do not appear to have anticipated at how short a period it would become 
a formidable instrument to control the free operations of the state gov- 
ernments." It is not difficult to perceive to whom and to what mea- 
sures the following extract was intended to apply : " But it is not by 
the extent of its patronage, alone, that the executive department has be- 
come dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the 
appointing power, to bring under its control the whole revenues of the 
country. The constitution has declared it to be the duty of the presi- 
dent to see that the laws are executed, and it makes him the commander- 
in-chief of the armies and navy of the United States. If the opinion of 
the most approved writers upon that species of mixed government, which, 
in modern Europe, is termed monarchy ^ in contradistinction to despotism^ 
is correct, there was wanting no other addition to the powers of our 
chief magistrate to stamp a monarchical character on our government, 
but the control of the public finances. And to me it appears strange 
indeed, that any one should doubt that the entire control which the 
president possesses over the officers who have the custody of the public 
money, by the powei of removal with or without cause, does, for all 



INAUGURATION- OF GENERAL HARRISON. 743 

mischievous purposes at least, virtually subject the treasure also to his 
disposal. 

"I am not insensible of the great dilSculty that exists in devising a 
proper plan for the safe keeping and disbursement of the public revenues, 
and I know the importance which has been attached by men of great 
abilities and patriotism to the divorce, as it is called, of the treasury 
from the banking institutions. It is not the divorce which is complain- 
ed of, but the unhallowed union of the treasury with the executive 
department which has created such extensive alarm. To this danger to 
our republican institutions, and that created by the influences given to 
the executive through the instrumentality of the federal officers, I pro- 
pose to apply all the remedies which may be at my command. It was 
certainly a great error in the framers of the constitution, not to have 
made the officer at the head of the treasury department entirely inde- 
pendent of the executive. He should at least have been removable only 
upon the demand of the popular branch of the legislature. I have de- 
termined never to remove a secretary of the treasury without communi- 
cating all the circumstances attending such removal to both houses of 
congres.\ * * * Never, with my consent, shall an officer of the 
people, CO npensated for his services out of their pockets, become the 
pliant instru nent of executive will." 

He also discusses the question of the currency. " The idea of making 
it exclusively metallic, however well intended, appears to me to be 
fraught with more fatal consequences than any other scheme, having no 
relation to the personal rights of the citizen, that has ever been devised. 
If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting, at once, that 
mutation of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow- 
citizens, by their industry and enterprise, are raised to the possession 
of wealth, that is one. If there is one measure better calculated than 
another to produce that state of things so much deprecated by all true 
republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards, and the 
poor are sinking deeper into penury, it is an exclusive metallic currency. 
Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for gene- 
rosity and nobleness of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase 
and necessary toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency." 
He deprecates the agitation of the question of slavery, and thus 
inculcates a spirit of forbearance : " Our citizens must be content with 
the exercise of the powers with which the constitution clothes them 
The attempt of those of one state to control the domestic institutions 
of another, can only result in feelings of distrust and jealousy, and are 
certain harbingers of disunion, violence, civil war, and the ultimate de- 
struction of our free institutions. Our confederacy is perfectly illus- 



744 ' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

trated by the terms and principles governing a common copartnership. 
There a fund of power is to be exercised under the direction of the joint 
counsels of the allied members, but that which has been reserved by the 
individuals is intangible by the common government, or the individual 
members composing it. To attempt it, finds no support in the princi- 
ples of our constitution. It should be our constant and earnest endeavor 
mutually to cultivate a spirit of concord and harmony among the various 
parts of our confederacy. Experience has abundantly taught us that 
the agitation by citizens of one part of the union of a subject not con- 
fided to the general government, but exclusively under the guardianship 
of the local authorities, is productive of no other consequences than bit- 
terness, alienation, discord, and injury to the very cause which is intend- 
ed to be advanced. Of all the great interests which appertain to our 
country, that of union — cordial, confiding, fraternal union — is by far the 
most important, since it is the only true and sure guarantee of all others." 

Passing over several topics of the address, we copy the following para- 
graph: " I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn 
to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence 
for the Christian religion, and a thorough conviction that sound morals, 
religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essen- 
tially connected with all true and lasting happiness ; and ^o that good 
Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who 
watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers, and has hitherto 
preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any 
other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our 
beloved country in all future time." 

President Harrison made choice of the following named persons as 
members of his cabinet : Daniel "Webster, of Massachusetts, secretary 
of state; Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, secretary of the treasury; John 
Bell, of Tennessee, secretary of war; George E. Badger, of North 
Carolina, secretary of the navy ; Francis Granger, of New York, post- 
master-general ; John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, attorney-general. 

The state of the currency and finances being such as, in the opinion of the 
president, required immediate attention, he issued a proclamation on the 
1 7th of March, convening congress on the last Monday (31st) of May. 

No administration had a more auspicious commencement than that of 
president Harrison, and no other has had so brief an existence. Before 
it could be said to have acquired any positive character, it was terminated. 
After an illness of eight days, the new president died, on the 4th of 
April, at the executive mansion in the city of Washington. In just 
one month from the day the executive duties were assumed, they passed 
unexpectedly into the hands of an accidental successor. By virtue of a 



INAUGURATION OF MR. TYLER. 745 

[irovision of the constitution, John Tyler, the vice-president, became the 
president of the United States. 

The inaugural address of Mr. Tyler was short; the usual opportunity 
of preparing one not having, under the peculiar circumstances which had 
brought him into office, been afforded him. In regard to foreign nations, 
his policy would be both to render and to demand justice. As the ten- 
dency of human institutions was to concentrate power in the hands of 
a single man, " a complete separation should take place between the 
sword and the purse. No matter where or how the public moneys shall 
be deposited, so long as the president can exert the power of appointing 
and removing, at his pleasure, the agents selected for their custody, the 
commander-in-chief of the army and navy is in fact the treasurer. A 
permanent and radical change should therefore be decreed. * * * 
The right to remove from office, while subjected to no just restraint, is 
inevitably destined to produce a spirit of crouching servility with the 
official corps, which, in order to uphold the hand which feeds them, 
would lead to direct and active interference in the elections, both state 
and federal, thereby subjecting the course of state legislation to the dic- 
tation of the chief executive officer, and making the will of that officer 
absolute and supreme. * • * J ^iH remove no incumbent from 
office who has faithfully and honestly acquitted himself of the duties of 
his office, except in cases where such officer has been guilty of an active 
partisanship, or by secret means — the less manly, and therefore the 
more objectionable — has given his official influence to the purposes of 
party, thereby bringing the patronage of the government into conflict 
with the freedom of elections." 

He said, a rigid economy in all public expenditures should be observed, 
and all sinecures should be abolished. War between the government 
and the currency should cease. He " regarded existing enactments as 
unwise and impolitic, and in a high degree oppressive;" and he would 
" promptly give his sanction to any constitutional measure, which, origi- 
nating in congress, should have for its object the restoration of a sound 
circulating medium, so essentially necessary to give confidence in all the 
transactions of life, to secure to industry its just and adequate rewards, 
and to reestablish the public prosperity. In deciding upon the adapta- 
tion of any such measure to the end proposed, as well as its conformity 
to the constitution," he would " resort to the fathers of the great repub- 
lican school for advice and instruction, to be drawn from their sage views 
of our system of government, and the light of their ever glorious ex- 
ample." 

No change in the cabinet as constituted by Gen. Harrison, was made 
by Mr. Tyler. 



746 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Pursuant to the proclamation of president Harrisor , the 27tli congress 
assembled in special session, on the 31st of May, 1841. The principal 
subjects presented in the message of the president, were those of the 
revenue, and of a suitable fiscal agent, capable of adding increased facil- 
ities in its collection and disbursement. The deficit in, the available 
funds in the treasury to meet the wants of the government for the year, 
was estimated at nearly eleven and a half millions ; for which some 
temporary provision was necessary. He advised congress, in providing 
for the wants of the treasury, not to alter the compromise act of March, 
1833. He reviewed the course of the two preceding administrations 
in relation to the public moneys, and stated the effects of that policy. 
As to the question whether existing evils would be remedied by a na- 
tional bank, he expressed no opinion. He considered Gen. Jackson to 
have been sustained by the popular vote in his opposition to the bank. 
The employment of the state banks as fiscal agents had been abandoned by 
its early advocates, and, he believed, had also been condemned by pop- 
ular sentiment. And, lastly, the sub-treasury had been condemned in 
a manner too plainly indicated to admit of a doubt. He concludes this 
part of the message as follows : 

" What is now to be regarded as the judgment of the American peo- 
ple on this whole subject, I have no accurate means of determining but 
by appealing to their more immediate representatives. The late contest, 
which terminated in the election of Greneral Harrison to the presidency, 
was decided on principles well known and openly declared ; and while 
the sub-treasury received in the result the most decided condemnation, 
yet no other scheme of finance seemed to have been concurred in. 

" To you, then, who have come more directly from the body of our 
common constituents, I submit the entire question, as best qualified to 
give a full exposition of their wishes and opinions. I shall be ready to 
concur with you in the adoption of such system as you ma}^ propose, 
reserving to myself the ultimate power of rejecting any measure which 
may, in my view of it, conflict with the constitution, or otherwise 
jeopard the prosperity of the country — a power which I could not part 
with even if I would, but which I will not believe any act of yours will 
call into requisition. * * * 

" With the adoption of a financial agency of a satisfactory charac- 
ter, the liope may be indulged, that the country may once more return 
to a state of prosperity : measures auxiliary thereto, and in some 
measure inseparably connected with its success, will doubtless claim the 
attention of congress. Among such, a distribution of the proceeds of 
the sales of the public lands, provided such distributi m does not force 
upon congress the necessity of imposing upon commerce heavier burdens 



EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS. 747 

than those contemplated by the act of 1833, would act as an efficient 
remedial measure, by being brought directly in aid of the states." 

John White, a whig member from Kentucky, was elected speaker of 
the house of representatives. The election was made viva voce. The 
vote was for White, 121 ; for John W. Jones, of Virginia, 84 ; scatter- 
ing 16. There was also a whig majority in the senate. 

Bills were introduced for the repeal of the sub-treasury, and for the 
incorporation of a " fiscal bank," as tTie proposed institution was to be 
called. The former of these bills was ordered to be engrossed in the 
senate, by a vote of 30 to 16; and was afterward passed, (June 9,) 29 
to 18. It passed the house on the 9th of August, 134 to 87, and 
became a law by the approval of the president on the 13th. This act 
contained a provision making it a felony for any officer charged with the 
safe-keeping, transfer, or disbursement of the public revenue, to convert 
it to his own use ; or to loan it with or without interest ; or to make an 
investment of it in any manner. This section was designed to prevent 
defalcations, of which there were so large a number, and for so very 
large an amount, during the administration of Mr. Van Buren, [Ap- 
pendix, NoteM.] 

The secretary of the treasury, in his report accompanying the presi- 
dent's message, recommended the establishment of a bank. The presi- 
dent having signified to some of his friends a desire that the secretary 
of the treasury should be called on for a plan, a call to this efiect was 
moved in both houses : in the house, on the 3d of June ; in the senate, 
on the 7th. The report of the secretary was accordingly made on the 
12th. With a view to free the proposed bank from constitutional objec- 
tion, it was to be incorporated in the District of Columbia, with power 
to establish branches only with the assent of the states. Its title was 
to be " The fiscal bank of the United States." 

In the senate, that part of the message relating to the currency and a 
fiscal agent for the government, was referred to a select committee, of 
which Mr. Clay was chairman, who, on the 21st of June, reported a 
bill based on the plan of the secretary. The leading features of the bill 
were the following : 

To guard against the exercise of any undue government or official 
influence, or the imputation of any unworthy transactions, the parent 
bank was prohibited from making discounts or loans, except loans to 
the government authorized by express law. 

The capital of the bank was to be thirty millions, to be increased, if 
congress should find it necessary, to fifty millions. 

To guard against undue expansion of the currency, the dividends were 
Jimited to seven per cent., the excess, beyond losse.«» and contingencies, 



748 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

to be paid into the treasury. The debts due the bank were not to exceed 
the amount of the capital stock paid in, and 75 per cent, thereon. It 
was not to contract debts exceeding twenty-five millions over and above 
its deposits. A free examination of its books was secured. It prohib- 
ited the renewal of loans, thus confining the bank to fair business trans- 
actions. Discounts or loans were to stop whenever its notes in circula- 
tion should exceed three times the amount of its specie in its vaults. 

To protect the community and the stockholders against mismanage- 
ment, loans to its officers were forbidden. "Voting by proxy was re- 
stricted. Dealing in stocks, and all commercial operations by the bank, 
were prohibited. A majority of the whole board of directors was 
necessary to transact business. Embezzlement of the funds of the bank 
by any of its officers or agents was made a punishable off"ense. 

The bill was under debate in the senate until the 28th of July, when, 
after some amendment, it passed that body, 26 to 23. It passed the 
house of representatives on the 6th of August, 128 to 97. It was 
retained by the president until the 16th, and returned with a veto. 
This was not altogether unexpected, as it had been ascertained by pri- 
vate interviews with him, that he was not satisfied with the bill. 

The following were the objections of the president to the bill : 

It created a national bank to operate per se over the union. The 
power of congress to incorporate such a bank had been in dispute from 
the origin of the government. He had for twenty-five years uniformly 
proclaimed his opinion to be against the exercise of such a power. With 
a knowledge of his opinions, the people had elected him to the office of 
vice-president. He had providentially become president ; he was sworn 
to support the constitution ; and it would be criminal to give his sanc- 
tion to the bill. 

He objected to its being made a bank of discount. The right to 
discount was not necessary to enable the government to collect and to 
disburse the public revenue, and incidentally to regulate the commerce 
and exchanges. Local discounts had nothing to do with this business. 
To be free from constitutional objection, it must be confined to dealing 
in exchanges. 

Another objection was, that the assent of the states was not suffi- 
ciently secured. The directors were required to establish an office of 
discount and deposit in any state in which two thousand shares should 
have been subscribed; and it might be done in any state giving its 
assent; and such assent was to be presumed, if the state did not at the 
first session after the establishment of such office, unconditionally declare 
its assent or dissent. And once established, whatever might prevent a 
state from speaking within the time prescribed, its assent was to be 



BANK VETOES. 749 

implied ; and the branch once established could not be withdrawn but 
by order of congress. 

The course of the president was regarded by the whigs as iiiexplicable. 
Whatever may have been his former views in regard to a bank, they 
were warranted in inferring that Mr. Ewing's plan was acceptable to 
him ; and there was no constitutional objection stated in the veto that 
did not equally apply to Mr. Ewing's bill. Anxious to prevent a rup- 
ture in the party, as well as to secure to the country the benefits of a 
bank, its friends resolved to prepare a bill which should insure the con- 
currence of the president. Not only was the message examined, but a 
deputation, consisting of Mr. Berrien, of the senate, and Mr. Sergeant, 
of the house, was sent to learn definitely what kind of a bill he would 
sanction. A new bill was prepared, reported in the house, and on the 
23d of August was passed without alteration, 125 to 94. It was 
passed in the senate on the 3d of September, 27 to 22. This bill also 
was negatived by the president. The title of the last bill was " An act 
to provide for the better collection, safe-keeping, and disbursement of 
the public revenue, by means of a corporation to be styled, the fiscal 
corporation of the United States." 

The bill having been framed with special reference to the wishes of 
the president, and after a consultation with him by a majority of the 
members of his cabinet, the second veto was received with surprise. It 
was sent to the house on the 9th of September. On the 11th, all the 
cabinet officers, except Mr. Webster, seat in their resignations. Secre- 
tary Ewiug, in his letter to the president, gives a detailed statement of 
the conversation at the cabinet meeting referred to, from which it appears 
that the president had expressed his approval of the bill. 

Mr. Ewing states that the bill he reported to congress had been made 
to meet the president's approbation. But in consequence of the changes 
it had undergone, he was not surprised at its being disapproved. On 
the 16th, the president read to Messrs. Ewing and Bell a portion of the 
message which he was then preparing ; and, in reply to the remark of 
Mr. Bell, that the minds of their friends were better prepared for the 
veto than they had been, he said, there ought to be no difficulty about 
it ; he had indicated in the message what kind of a bank he would 
approve, and congress might pass such a one in three days. 

On the 18th, at the cabinet meeting, Messrs. Crittenden and Granger 
only absent, the president expressed a wish that congress would postpone 
the subject until the next session. Mr. Badger expressed the belief 
that congress was ready to take up the bill reported by Mr. Ewing, and 
pass it at once. The president replied : "Talk not to me of Mr. Ewing's 
bill ; it contains that odious feature of local discounts, which I have 



750 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

repudiated in my message." Mr. Ewing thought the house, having 
ascertained the president's views, would pass a bill in conformity to 
them, if they were satisfied that it would answer the purposes of the 
treasury, and relieve the country. The president expressed a wish that 
the cabinet would stand by him in this emergency, and procure the pas- 
sage of a bill which he could approve without inconsistency. Having 
stated his objection to offices of discount and deposit in the several 
states, even with their assent, Mr. Ewing said he understood him to be 
9f opinion that the bank might establish agencies in the states to deal 
m bills of exchange without their assent. To which he replied : " Yes, 
if they are foreign bills, or bills drawn in one state and payable in 
another. That is all the power necessary for transmitting the public 
funds, and regulating the exchanges and the currency." 

Mr. Webster expressed the opinion that such a charter would answer 
the purposes of the government, and satisfy the people ; and he pre- 
ferred it to any other plan proposed, as it did not require the assent of 
the states to an institution necessary to carry on the fiscal operations of 
government. He examined it both as to its constitutionality, and its 
influence on the currency and the exchanges. The president concurred 
iu these views, and desired that such a bill should be introduced, and 
that it should go into the hands of some of his friends ; and he assented 
to the selection of Mr. Sergeant. The details of the bill were agreed 
on ; and to satisfy the president, the word corporation was substituted 
for " bank." Mr. Ewing having suggested that this would probably be 
made the subject of ridicule, the president insisted on the change, saying 
there was much in a name ; and the institution ought not to be called a 
bank. At his request, Mr. Webster and Mr. Ewing both called on 
Messrs. Berrien and Sergeant, with whom the bill was arranged. It 
was afterward examined by the president, and by him assented to as it 
finally passed. 

Mr. Ewing farther narrates as follows : " You asked Mr. Webster 
and myself each to prepare and present you an argument touching the 
constitutionality of the bill ; and before those arguments could be pre- 
pared and read by you, you declared, as I heard and believe, to gentle- 
men, members of the house, that you would cut ofi" your right hand 
rather than approve it. After this new resolution was taken, you asked 
and eai-nestly urged the members of your cabinet to postpone the bill ; 
but you would neither give yourself, nor sufi"er them to give, any assu- 
rance of your future course, in case of such postponement. By somo 
of us, and I was myself one, the effort was made to gratify your wishes, 
in the only way in which it could be done with propriety ; that is, by 
obtaining the general concurrence of the whig members of the two 



BANK VETOES. 751 

houses in the postponement. It failed, as I have reason to believe, 
because you would give no assurance that the delay was not sought as a 
means and occasion for hostile movements. During this season of deep 
feeling and earnest exertion upon our part, while we were zealously 
devoting our talents and influence to serve and to sustain you, the very 
secrets of our cabinet councils made their appearance in an infamous 
paper, printed in a neighboring city, the columns of which were daily 
charged with flattery of yourself and foul abuse of your cabinet. 
All this I bore; for I felt that my services, so long as they could avail, 
were due to the nation — to that great and magnanimous people whose 
sufi'rages elevated your predecessor to the station which you now fill, and 
whose united voices approved his act when he summoned us around him, 
to be his counsellors. I felt that what was due to his memory, to the 
injunctions which he left us in his last dying words, and to the people, 
whose servants we were, had not all been performed until every means 
was tried, and every hope had failed of carrying out the true princi- 
ples upon which the mighty movement was founded that elevated him 
and you to power. 

" This bill, framed and fashioned according to your own suggestions, 
in the initiation of which I and another member of your cabinet were 
made by you the agents and negotiators, was passed by large majorities 
through the two houses of congress, and sent to you, and you rejected 
it. Important as was the part which I had taken, at your request, in tho 
origination of this bill, and deeply as I was committed for your action 
upon it, you never consulted me on the subject of the veto message. 
You did not even refer to it in conversation, and the first notice I had 
of its contents was derived from rumor. 

" And to me, at least, you have done nothing to wipe away the per- 
sonal indignity arising out of the act. I gathered, it is true, from your 
conversation, shortly after the bill had passed the house, that you had a 
strong purpose to reject it; but nothing was said like softening or 
apology to me, either in reference to myself or to those with whom I had 
communicated at your request, and who had acted themselves and 
induced the two houses to act upon the faith of that communication. 
And, strange as it may seem, the veto message attacks in an especial 
manner the very provisions which were inserted at your request ; and 
even the name of the corporation, which was not only agreed to by you, 
but especially changed to meet your expressed wishes, is made the sub- 
ject of your criticisms. * * * 

"The subject of a bank is not new to you; it is more than twenty 
years that you have made it an object of consideration and of study, 
especially in its connection with the constitutional powers of the general 



752 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

government. You, therefore, could not be, and you were not, taken un- 
prepared on this question. The bill which I reported to congress, with 
your approbation, at the commencement of the session, had the clause 
relating to agencies, and the power to deal in exchanges, as strongly 
developed, as the one you have now rejected, and equally without the 
assent of the states. You referred specially and with approbation to 
that clause, many days after, in a conversation, held in the department 
of state. You sanctioned it iu this particular bill as detailed above. 
And no doubt was thrown out on the subject by you, in my hearing, or 
within my knowledge, until the letter of Mr. Botts came to your hands. 
Soon after the reading of that letter, you threw out strong intimations 
that you would veto the bill if it were not postponed. That letter I did 
and do most unequivocally condemn, but it did not affect the constitu- 
tionality of the bill, or justify you in rejecting it on that ground." 

The statements of Mr. Ewing were confirmed by letters from Mr. 
Badger and Mr. Bell, the secretaries of the navy and of war, to the 
editors of the National Intelligencer. Mr. Bell is more full than Mr. 
Ewing, upon some of the topics discussed at the cabinet meeting alluded 
to. Mr. Clay had expressed the opinion — in which the members of the 
cabinet probably concurred — that the assent or dissent of the states to 
the establishment of branches in them, did not affect the question of the 
constitutionality of a national bank. Mr. Tyler, however, seemed to 
think otherwise ; but he agreed with them that if that objection could 
be avoided, it was highly desirable that the institution, being an agent 
of the general government, should be independent of the will of the 
states. And he desired the opinion of his cabinet upon the question, 
whether, without the power of discount and deposit, the distinction be- 
tween the old bank and the one proposed was not sufficient to make a 
difference as to the constitutional question, and to render his approval 
of the latter consistent with his former expressed opinions on the sub- 
ject of a national bank. He was apparently satisfied, that a bank 
restricted in its dealings to bills of exchange, was not liable to the con- 
stitutional objection. The privilege of issuing its own notes, of deal- 
ing in exchanges, and of receiving moneys on deposit, all appeared 
to have immediate reference to, or connection with, the power given in 
the constitution over commerce between the states, over the currency, 
and the necessary fiscal operations of the government in the collection, 
safe-keeping, and disbursement of the public revenue. 

After all the material points had been disposed of to the satisfaction 
of all present, he said he would not sanction a bank even in the form 
agreed on, if he supposed it would at some future session be changed 
into a bank of discount, and asked his cabinet if they would stand by 



DISSOLUTION OF THE CABINET. 753 

him, and oppose such attempt during his administration. Mr. Webster 
and others gave him all proper assurances on this point. 

The letter to which allusion is made by Mr. Ewing, and which was 
presumed to have had great influence in causing the veto, was written 
by John M. Botts, representative of the Richmond district of Virginia, 
addressed to " Cofi'eehouse, Richmond," postmarked " Washington, 
16th August," and franked by Mr. Botts. The following is a copy of 
the letter : 

" August 16, 1841. 

*' Dear Sir. : The president has finally resolved to veto the bank bill 
It will be sent in to-day at 12 o'clock. It is impossible to tell precisely 
on what ground it will be placed. He has turned and twisted, and 
changed his ground so often in his conversations, that it is difficult to 
conjecture which of the absurdities he will rest his veto upon. 

" In the last conversation reported, he said his only objection was to 
that provision which presumed the assent of the states when no opinion 
was expressed, and if that was struck out, he would sign the bill. He 
had no objection to the location of branches by the directors, in the 
absence of dissent expressed, but whenever it was expressed, the power 
to discount promissory notes must cease, although the agency might con- 
tinue, for the purchase and sale of foreign exchange. However, you 
will see the message. 

" Our Captain Tyler is making a desperate effort to set himself up 
with the loco focos, but he'll be headed yet, and I regret to say, it will 
end badly for him. — He will be an object of execration with both parties 
with the one, for vetoing our bill, which was bad enough — with the other, 
for signing a worse one; but he is hardly entitled to sympathy. He 
has refused to listen to the admonition and entreaties of his best friends, 
and looked only to the whisperings of ambitious and designing mischief- 
makers who have collected around him. 

" The veto will be received without a word, laid on the table, and 
ordered to be printed. To-night we must and will settle matters, as 
quietly as possible, but they must be settled. 

"Yours, &c., Jno. M. Botts, 

" You'll get a bank bill, I think, but one that will serve only to fasten 
him, and to which no stock will be subscribed; and when he finds out 
that he is not wiser in banking than all the rest of the world, we may 
get a better. The excitement here is tremendous, but it will be smoth- 
ered for the present." 

Whether the course of Mr. Webster in remaining in the cabinet, or 
that of the resigning members, evinced the greater wisdom, is a question 

48 



754 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

upon which there was a difference of opinion. Considered simply as a 
matter of expediency, the majority of the cabinet, it is believed, com- 
mitted an error. It was easy to foresee the consequences of the course 
they adopted — the disruption and eventual prostration of the whig party. 

Mr. Webster, writing to a friend on the day of the resignations, says : 
" I could not partake in this movement. It is supposed to be justified, 
I presume, by the differences which have arisen between the president 
and congress, upon the means of establishing a proper fiscal agency, and 
restoring a sound state of the currency ; and collateral matters, growing 
out of these differences. I regret these differences as deeply as any man; 
but I have not been able to see in what manner the resignation of the 
cabinet was likely either to remove or mitigate the evils produced by 
them. On the contrary, my only reliance for a remedy for those evils 
has been, and is, on the union, conciliation and perseverance of the whole 
whig party, and I by no means despair of seeing yet accomplished, by 
these means, all that we desire. It may render us more patient under 
disappointment in regard to one measure, to recollect, as is justly stated 
by the president in his last message, how great a number of important 
measures had been already successfully carried through. I hardly know 
when such a mass of business has been despatched in a single session of 
congress. 

" The annual winter session, is now near at hand ; the same congress is 
again soon to assemble, and feeling as deeply as I ever did, the indis- 
pensable necessity of some suitable provision for the keeping of the 
public money, for aid to the operations of the treasury, and to the high 
public interests of currency and exchange, I am not in haste to be- 
lieve that the party, which has now the predominance, will not, in all 
these respects, yet fulfill the expectations of the country. If it shall 
not, then our condition is forlorn indeed. But for one, I will not give 
up the hope." 

The vacancies in the cabinet were filled by the appointment of Walter 
Forward, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury ; John M'Lean, of 
Ohio, secretary of war ; Abel P. Upshur, secretary of the navy ; Charles 
A. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, postmaster-general ; Hugh S. Legar6, of 
South Carolina, attorney-general. Judge M'Lean, choosing to remain 
in the supreme court, declined the office of secretary of war ; and John 
C. Spencer, of New York, was in October appointed to that office. 

On the nth of September, a meeting of whig members of congress was 
held at Washington. Hon. Nathan F. Dixon, of Hhode Island, on the 
part of the senate, and Hon. Jeremiah Morrow, of Ohio, on the part of 
the house, were called to the chair ; and K. W. Rayner, of North Caro- 
lina, Christopher Morgan, of New York, and R. W. Thompson, of In- 



MR. TYLER AND THE WHIG PARTT. 755 

diana, were appointed secretaries. A committee of three on the j art of 
the senate, and five on the part of the house, was appointed to prepare 
an address to the people of the United States, to be presented at an ad- 
journed meeting on Monday the 13th. The senators appointed were 
Messrs. Berrien, of Georgia, Tallmadge of New York, and Smith, of 
Indiana ; the representatives, Messrs. Everett, of Vermont, Mason, of 
Ohio, Kennedy, of Maryland, John C. Clark, of New York, and Ray- 
ner, of North Carolina. 

At the meeting on the 13th, Mr. Kennedy reported an address, which 
was unanimously adopted ; and 20,000 copies of the same were ordered 
printed. The address adverted to the reforms promised by the whigs ; 
in restraining the executive power and patronage ; in the wholesome 
regulation of the currency ; and in the establishment of an economical 
administration of the finances. It reviewed what they had done, and 
the position into which the party had been thrown by the president. The 
duties which remained for them to do, were. First, To efi'ect a reduction 
of the executive power, by a farther limitation of the veto ; by restrict- 
ing the presidential office to a single term ; by separating the purse from 
the sword, placing the appointment of the secretary of the treasury in 
congress ; and by restricting the power of dismissal from office. Second, 
The establishment of a fiscal agent competent to collect, keep, and disburse 
the public moneys, to restore the currency, and to equalize exchanges. 
Third, The introduction of economy in the administration, and the dis- 
continuance of all sinecures and useless offices. 

To effect these objects, the address enjoined it upon the party to 
choose no members of congress who would not aid in their accomplish- 
ment ; and to inscribe upon their flag, " The will of the nation uncon- 
trolled by the will of one man : one presidential term; a frugal govern- 
ment, and no sub-treasury, open or covert, in substance or in fact : no 
government bank, but an institution capable of guarding the people's 
treasure, and administering to the people's wants." 

The course pursued by Mr. Tyler was almost universally disapproved 
by the whig party. There were many, however, who deeply regretted 
the course taken by congress, as in their opinion unwise and inexpedient. 
Although not doubting the utility of a bank, they believed public senti- 
ment had been too recently expressed against the late bank to render the 
reestablishment of a new one a popular measure. The attempt was con- 
sidered as at least premature. They believed also that forbearance 
toward the president, even under abuse, was the proper course ; and 
that a quarrel might and ought to have been by all means avoided ; 
that, by the exercise of a more conciliatory spirit, and suitable efi"ort3, 
.he cooperation of the president might have been secured in favor of the 
loading measures proposed by the whig congress. 



756 THE AMElllCAN STATESMAN. 

As the chief object of the extra session had been to consider the sub» 
jeets of the finances and the currency, congress adjourned immediately 
after the bank question was determined. Several laws, however, of some 
importance had been previously passed ; one of which was a general 
bankrupt law, for which it was supposed a necessity had been created by 
the numerous failures that had been produced by the recent revulsion in 
the business of the country 

An act was also passed to distribute among the states the proceeds of the 
sales of the public lands — a measure which had for so many years been 
attempted without success. The distribution, however, was subject to 
the condition, that the duties established by the compromise tariff of 
1833, were not to be raised. If at any time congress should increase 
those duties, distribution was to be suspended until the cause of the sus- 
pension should cease. The distribution was to be made semi-annually, 
after the 1st of January, 1842. 

An act was also passed, authorizing a loan of twelve millions of 
dollars 



CHAPTEE LXII. 

PETITION FOR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MK. 

ADAMS. CENSURE OF MR. GIDDINGS. 

On the 21st of January, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition pur- 
porting to be from a number of respectable citizens of Georgia, complain- 
ing, as a grievance to them, that he had been appointed chairman of the 
committee on foreign relations, and calling upon the house to remedy the 
grievance. Claiming the right to defend himself against these petitioners, 
he moved the reference of the petition to the committee •n foreign 
affairs, with instructions to choose a chairman if they should think 
proper. 

Mr. Habersham, of Georgia, said he had seen the paper, and had told 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, that he believed the petition to be a 
hoax. The subject was laid on the table. 

Mr. Adams, the next day, again claimed, as a matter of privilege, the 
right of defending himself from the charges made in the petition. The 
speaker being of opinion that the motion to lay on the table had carried 
with it every thing connected with the petition, a motion was made and 



PETITION FOR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. 757 

adopted to reconsider the vote on that motion. Mr. A., in his remarks, 
said the whole slave-trading representation of the house was against him, 
with one exception. If it had been secret before, it was now disclosed 
by a gentleman, late a senator from Alabama, in a letter to his constitu- 
ents, [a portion of which Mr. A. here read.] The executive journal of 
the extra session showed, that appointments of abolitionists had been 
confirmed by votes of southern whigs, while northern democrats had 
voted against them. 

Mr. Smith, of Virginia, rose to a point of order. The house had de- 
cided that the gentleman from Massachusetts should have the privilege 
of defending himself against the charge of monomania, and he asked if 
he was doing it. [Cries of " Yes ! yes !" and also of " No, he is estab- 
lishing the fact."] * 

Mr. Adams read farther from the letter, which stated that a coalition 
had been formed between southern whig leaders and the abolitionists, as 
well as the federalists of the north ; and that this extraordinary alliance 
was not less indispensable for the prosperity of the union, than for the 
safety of the south. This letter contained precisely the same charge in 
substance against those whom it called the abolitionists of the north, as 
this petition charged against him. He had other evidence of the same 
spirit, in a letter from a place called Accomae, (Mr. Wise's residence.) 
[He then read portions of the letter relative to complaints which had been 
made against the " corporal's guard," the friends par excellence of the 
president, for not supporting any of the whig measures proposed at the 
extra session ; in which letter the question was" asked, what measures 
were meant — whether it was the abolition movement to keep the house 
of representatives disorganized until the 21st rule (prohibiting the recep- 
tion of anti-slavery petitions) was suspended or abolished ; or whether it 
related to the constitution of committees ; so that, if the question of the 
black republic of Hayti was referred, it went to a majority of non-slave- 
holders.] What committee was that ? asked Mr. Adams. It was this 
identical committee : and the speaker was charged with a violation of his 
duty in its appointment. The feelings of the writer were the same as 
those expressed in this memorial. It was not an individual or personal 
feeling, but it was slaveholdiug, slavetrading, slavebreeding ; and the 
complaint was that the majority of the committee were not slaveholders. 
Mr. Adams had not finished reading from the letter, when the ques- 
tion of order was raised, the speech arrested, and the house adjourned. 

On the 24th of January, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition, 
signed by forty-six citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, for the adop- 
tion of measures peaceably to dissolve the union, assigning as one of the 
reasons, the inequality of benefits conferred upon the difl'erent sections^ 



758 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

one section being annually drained to sustain the views and course of 
another without adequate return. He moved its reference to a select 
committee, with instructions to report an answer, showing the reasons 
why the prayer should not be granted. 

Sundry questions and motions from southern members followed in 
rapid succession. Was it in order to move to burn the petition ? asked 
one. A motion was made by another to lay on the table and jjrint, that 
the country might understand its character. Was it in order, asked Mr. 
Wise, to move to censure any member presenting such a petition ? By 
another the question of reception was raised — such a petition should not 
be allowed to come within the walls of the house. Another thought it 
ought not to be thus lightly passed over. Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia, 
submitted as a question of privilege, the following : "Resolved, That, 
in presenting to the consideration of this house a petition for the disso- 
lution of the union, the member from Massachusetts has justly incurred 
the censure of this house." The resolution was objected to as out of 
order. The speaker decided that, being a question of privilege, it was 
in order. 

Mr. Adams said he hoped the resolution would be received and de- 
bated, desiring the privilege of again addressing the house in his own 
defense, especially ao tne gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Gilmer) had 
thought proper to play second fiddle to his colleague from Accomac, 
(Mr. Wise.) Mr. Gilmer said he played second fiddle to no man. He 
was no fiddler, (cries of " order, order,") but was endeavoring to pre- 
vent the music of him who, 

" In the space of one revolving moon, 
Was statesman, poet, fiddler, and bufibon," 

The next day, a motion to lay Mr. Gilmer's resolution on the table 
was negatived, 94 to 112, Mr. Adams himself voting in the negative. 

Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, then ofl"ered as a substitute for Mr. 
Gilmer's resolution, a preamble and two resolutions, declaring a propo- 
sition to the representatives of the people to dissolve the constitution 
which they were sworn to support, to be " a high breach of privilege, 
a contempt offered to the house, a direct proposition to each member to 
commit perjury, and involving necessarily in its consequences the des- 
truction of our country, and the crime of high treason;" that Mr. 
Adams, in presenting the petition, had "offered the deepest indignity to 
the house, and insult to the people," and would, if " unrebuked and un- 
punished, have disgraced his country in the eyes of the world." It was 
farther resolved, that this insult, the first of the kind ever offered, 
deserved expulsion ; but, as an act of grace and mercy, they would only 
inflict upon him " their severest censure, for the maintenance of their 



ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR. ADAMS. 759 

own purity, and dignity ; and for the rest, they turn him over to his 
own conscience and the indignation of all true American citizens." 

A debate then ensued which continued, with little intermission, until 
the 7th of February. The nature of the subject of the resolutions, 
the serious charges which they contained, and the individual accused, 
as well as certain incidental topics which it embraced, imparted to this 
debate a surpassing interest throughout the country. For several days 
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Wise, and Mr. Adams, were the chief participators. 
Mr, Wise undertook to show, in the course of his speeches, that there 
was a combination of pretended philanthropists of Great Britain and 
the abolitionists of this country to overthrow slavery in the southern 
states; and he charged Mr. Adams with being an ally of British emis- 
saries in the furtherance of this object. Mr. Wise in support of his 
opinion as to the existence of an "alien English influence " in this coun- 
try, cooperating with that of American abolitionists, read from letters 
and papers printed in both countries. A part of the general plan was 
to bring the elective franchise to bear upon the question ; another was 
to memorialize congress. 

In relation to the plan of memorializing, which had been " thoroughly 
digested," he said : " The directions were very minute, going down even 
to the folding and indorsing of the forms of memorials, and directing 
them to be forwarded to the Hon. Seth M. Gates, the agent of the aboli- 
tionists on the floor of congress. Here, Mr. W. said, was a deliberately 
formed plan of operation, with a member of the house for their organ 
and agent, and all the forms of petition put into the people's mouths, 
ready cooked and concocted beforehand. Many of them were, word for 
word, such petitions as had been already presented to that house ; one, 
indeed, the petition for the dissolution of the union, did not appear among 
them, but every movement was planned which led to that result. The 
entire train was carefully and skillfully laid ; the mine was already sunk 
beneath the walls of the constitution : and the incendiary stood ready 
with his torch prepared to blow the union into ten thousand fragments." 
Mr. W. referred to Washington's farewell address, which warned us of 
the ruinous consequences of arraying the north against the south — the 
east against the west. 

Mr. Wise said he should at the proper time ask to be excused from 
voting for the resolution of censure. Personally, he had not censured 
him ; politically he had. He said : " The gentleman was honored, time 
honored, hoary — but he could not add, with wisdom. The gentleman 
had immense power, the power of station, the power of fame, the power 
of age, the power of eloquence, the power of the pen ; and any man was 
greatly mistaken who should say or think, that the gentleman was mad. 



760 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The gentleman might say with an apostle, ' I am not mad most noble 
Festus,' though he could not add, ' but speak forth the words of truth 
and soberness.' All who knew him would say he was not mad. In a 
political, not in a personal sense, Mr. W. would say, and with entire 
sincerity of heart, the gentleman was far more wicked than weak. A 
mischief might be done by him. Mr. W. believed he waa disposed to 
do it, and would wield his immense intellectual, moral, and political power 
to effect it. That mischief was the dissolution of this union, and the 
agent of that dissolution, should it ever be effected, Mr. W. did in his 
heart believe, would be the gentleman from Massachusetts. Governed 
by his reputation, by his habits, by all considerations arising from 
the belief of personal wrongs, his passions were roused, and his resent- 
ment and his vengeance would be wreaked on the objects of his hatred, 
if he could reach them. If this state of mind were monomania, then it 
was hereditary ; no matter what might be its cause, it was dangerous — 
deadly. The gentleman was astute in design, obstinate and zealous in 
power, and terrible in action, and an instrument well fitted to dissolve 
the union. 

Mr. Adams questioned the right of the house to entertain the resolu- 
tions of Mr. Marshall, because they charged him with crimes of which 
the house had no jurisdiction ; and because, if it entertained the juris- 
diction, it deprived him of rights secured to him by the constitution. All 
that the house could try him for, was a contempt of the house, under 
the resolution of Mr. Gilmer. "But," said Mr. A., " there was a trial 
in this house, about four or five years ago, of a member of the house for 
crimes. [Mr. Wise had had some connection with the duel between Messrs. 
Graves and Cilley, in which the latter was killed.] There came into 
this house then a man with his hands and face dripping with the blood 
of murder, the blotches of which were yet hanging upon him ; and the 
question was put, upon the proposition of those very democrats to whom 
he has this day rendered the tribute and homage of his thanks, that he 
should be tried by this house for that crime, the crime of murder. * * * 
I opposed the trial of that crime by this house. * * * J -v^as willing 
that the parties to that atrocious crime should be sent to their 
natural judges, to have an impartial trial; . . . and it is very probable 
that / saved that blood-stained man from the censure of the house at 
that time." 

Mr. Wise, interrupting Mr. Adams, inquired of the speaker whether 
liis character or conduct was involved in the issue before the house, and 
whether it was in order to charge him with the crime of murder; a 
charge made by a man who had at the time defended him from the 
charge on that floor ; and who had, as he was informed by one of Mr 



ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR. ADAMS. 761 

A.'s. own colleagues, defended him before thousands of people in Massa^ 
chusetts. 

Mr. Adams said he never had defended the man on the merits of the 
case ; and never did believe but -what he was the guilty man, and that 
the man who pulled the trigger was but an instrument in his hands. He 
repeated, that the house had no power to try and punish him for the 
crimes charged against him. The constitution provides, that " in all 
criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and 
public trial by an impartial jury." The house was not an impartial tri- 
bunal. " I wish," said Mr. A., " to speak of the slaveholders of this 
house and of the union with respect. There are three classes of persons 
included in the slave interest as representatives here. As to the slave- 
holder, I have nothing to say against him, except that if I am to be 
tried by him, I shall not have an impartial trial. I challenge him for 
partiality — for pre-adjudication upon this question, as a question of con- 
tempt, which I repeat, is the only charge on which I can be made to 
answer here. I say he is not impartial. Every slaveholder has not only 
an interest, but the most sordid of all interests — a personal, pecuniary 
interest — which will govern him. I come from a portion of the country 
where slavery is known only by name ; I come from a soil that bears not 
the foot of a slave upon it. I represent here the descendants of Bed- 
ford, and Winslow, and Carver, and Alden — the first who alighted on 
the rock of Plymouth. And am I, the representative of the descendants 
of these men — of the free people of the state of Massachusetts, that bears 
not a slave upon it — am I to come here and be tried for high treason be- 
cause I presented a petition — a petition — to this house, and because the 
fancy or imagination of the gentleman from Kentucky supposes that 
there was anti-slaver;y or the abolition of slavery in it ? The gentleman 
charges me with subornation of perjury and of high treason, and he calls 
upon this house, as a matter of mercy and grace, not to expel me for 
these crimes, but to inflict upon me the severest censure they can ; and 
to decide upon that, there are one hundred members of this house who 
are slaveholders. Is any one of them impartial ? No. I trust they 
will not consider themselves as impartial men ; I trust that many of 
them will have those qualms of conscience which the gentleman from 
Accomac (Mr. Wise) assigns as his reason for being excused, and that 
they will not vote upon a question on which their personal, pecuniary, 
and most sordid interests are at stake." 

Mr. Underwood, of Kentuckj-, also maintained that the house was not 
the proper tribunal before which Mr. A., if guilty of the crimes alleged, 
ought to be arraigned. He defended the right of petition. He believed 
where there was no power to grant the prayer of the petitioners, there 



762 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

was no right to petition. But he had voted against the 21st rule, because 
bj that petitioners were excluded who had a right to be heard As a 
slaveholder, he had differed from his brethren in reference to the whole 
gag proceeding. In reference to all gag rules, he said, away with them. 
Let those who wish discuss this topic as much as they pleased. He 
attempted to show that the proceeding against Mr. Adams was to pun- 
ish him for an imputed motive. What had he been guilty of? Had he 
sanctioned the petition ? How could they judge his motive ? Nor had 
he violated the rules of order. He had simply presented a petition ; 
and they were attempting to punish him for the manner in which he had 
considered it his duty to represent a portion of the people of Massachu- 
setts. He told gentlemen to beware how they put it into the power of 
the gentleman from Massachusetts to go home and tell his constituents 
that he was a martyr to the right of petition. 

Mr. Botts also defended Mr. Adams. He did not approve all that 
he had said on that floor. But he would not wound the feelings of that 
venerable gentleman. He believed he had expressed many sentiments 
in the irritability of the weight of years that hung on him, which his 
own calm reflection would condemn. There was enough passing under 
his immediate observation to provoke the gentleman, and if he might 
use the expression, to " bedevil " him. But what was the offense with 
which he stood charged ? He had presented a petition ; and he had 
asked permission to present a remonstrance, and appeal to the petition- 
ers against the folly of their course. This was not the first time the 
house had heard of the dissolution of the union. A gentleman from 
South Carolina, now a member of this body, (Mr. Rhett,) had three or 
four years ago actually drawn up a resolution, asking congress to appoint 
a committee, to consist of one member from each state, to devise measures 
for the dissolution of the union. [This called out Mr. Rhett in expla- 
nation. It was not his wish to dissolve the union; he intended it as an 
amendment to a motion to refer with instructions to report a bill for 
abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. He expected it to be 
laid on the table with the original motion. His design was to place 
before congress and the people what he believed to be the true issue 
upon this great and vital question. ThL resolution proposed a commit- 
tee of two from each state.] It was, said Mr. Botts, not only the doc- 
trine of the gentleman, but of the majority of his state. They held 
that a state had a right to secede from the union. If one state had 
such right, others had. 

Mr. B. considered this affair a great farce — a storm in a tea-pot. 
Talk of censuring the gentleman from Massachusetts ! Look at the 
other end of this avenue. A man at the head of the right arm of the 



ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR. ADAMS. 76'd 

defense of this nation — tbe secretary of the navy, (Mr. Upshur,) the last 
time he had had conversation with him, was an open, avowed advocate 
of the immediate dissolution of the union. [Mr. Wise : I deny it.] Mr. 
B. repeated the declaration, and said, when the secretary denied it, he 
would undertake to prove his statement. If there were to be any charges 
for high treason, the secretary of the navy should be put on his trial. 

Mr. Arnold, of Tennessee, spoke at length in opposition to the reso- 
lutions, and in defense of Mr. Adams. He could have no possible 
motive for desiring the dissolution of the union. He had presented 
this petition, because he wanted, as the last and most glorious act of a 
long life, to send forth, in these times of general confusion and political 
degeneracy, a paper with healing in its wings — a report adverse to the 
prayer of the petition, and which should state, in a luminous and con- 
vincing manner, all the strong arguments in favor of union. He would 
like to see such a paper from the able pen of that venerable patriot. It 
would dissipate all doubts as to the purity and patriotism of its author. 
" But," continued Mr. Arnold, " for the crime of presenting a petition 
with such an object in view, the house was to put on record against him 
a charge of aiding in high treason, and in suborning the members of 
that house to the commission of perjury; and he was to consider it as 
a great favor that the house did not expel him, but contented itself 
with giving him a reprimand. Mr. A. should like to witness the spec- 
tacle. He should like to see that gentleman standing at the bar, with 
his palsied hand, his bare head, and whitened locks, to be rebuked by 
the speaker, comparatively a mere boy, after having been visited with 
the vituperation and vindictive persecution of another, as much a boy 
in comparison. What a spectacle ! Mr. A. turned from the thought 
with loathing and disgust, and so would the nation. So far from help- 
ing the cause of the south, it would kindle up against her a blaze high 
as the very heavens. He was against it — utterly and totally against it 
— from principle and from policy too." 

Mr. Saltonstall, of Massachusetts, gave a history of the rise and 
progress of the idea of dissolving the union, beginning with the various 
threats from the southern portion of the union — from those opposed to 
a tariff, from the nullification party, &c. This petition was from his 
own native town, and he felt much surprised and distressed at the cir- 
cumstance. He then went into a vigorous and eloquent defense of his 
venerable colleague from the numerous and violent charges made against 
him in the long speech of Mr. Wise. 

Several of the last days of the debate were nominally occupied by 
Mr. Adams in his defense. It would seem, however, from the proceed- 
ings, that quite as much time was taken up by others as himself There 



764 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

were frequent interruptions, explanations, motions, and incidental ques 
tions, which served to protract the defense. 

Mr. Adams called attention to the combination formed against him. 
He spoke first of the " coalition" between Mr. Gilmer and Mr. Mar- 
shall, both of whom had introduced resolutions of accusation against 
him ; so that if acquitted on the charge of the latter, he would have to 
defend himself against those of the former. This coalition was pointed 
against one single individual, a member of this house, charged with 
half a dozen capital crimes ; and this house was called upon to censure 
him because he had presented a petition. In what part of the consti- 
tution was this declared a crime ? He would like the gentleman from 
Kentucky to look into his deep researches of law, to point out the law 
which made it a crime to present a petition, lead to what it might. In 
the first place, the gentleman had made the law ; he had then gone on 
and accused an associate member of violating it — to sit as a judge upon 
him, and then turn executioner. And to crown all, he had declared 
that it was a great mercy and favor that the punishment was not much 
more severe ! The report of the speech proceeds as follows : 

*' He had spoken of the extraordinary position of the gentleman from 
Kentucky combined with the chief of the Tyler party, heretofore called 
the corporal's guard, but who, Mr. A. should think, was the field-mar- 
shal of the armies of the present administration. "When he saw that 
combination in the first instance, he could not help asking, What is 
this ? Misery, it was said, makes strange bed-fellows. And he thought 
to himself, was the gentleman from Kentucky in such misery that he 
was compelled to seek such companions? (Laughter.) Then came the 
Georgia whigs, who, after endeavoring to produce an impression unfavor- 
able to him for having presented a petition, on the ground that it M^as a 
hoax, had all gone on voting against him, for the purpose of bringing 
censure upon him. 

" The third part of this combination was a large portion of the Vir- 
ginia whigs, who were neither Tylerites nor Kentuckians. And then, the 
great democracy of the free states — the auxiliaries of the " peculiar insti- 
tution." (Laughter.) This was a combination of parties he was called 
to meet in order to maintain his right as a member of this house, to pre- 
sent petitions complaining of grievances. A very strange composi- 
tion ! * * * 

" He, Mr. A., hoped his southern confederates would lay it to their 
hearts, that they should have no more such resolutions as were prepared 
by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Rhett,) and kept in his 
drawer to be presented to this house. He should have hoped that, out 
of mere sympathy, the gentleman, if he had thought him, (Mr. A.,) 



ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR. ADAMS. 765 

guilty of the crime of perjury or high treusou, as he ■would be, necessar- 
ily included in it,, would have given him, (Mr. A.,) the benefit of his vote 
on this occasion. (A laugh.) But no, he was a part of the party. He 
now voted that he (Mr. A.) was guilty of subornation of perjury or high 
treason for presenting a petition exactly agreeing with his views ! (A 
laugh.) That gentleman and the rest of the representatives from South 
Carolina — that land of nullification, against whom Andrew Jackson him- 
self was reduced to the necessity of issuing a proclamation threatening 
them with the second section if they continued in it — here was the whole 
representation from that state, ready to indorse the charges of the 
gentleman from Kentucky, of high treason, because forty-five of his fel- 
low-citizens thought on the particular points of the dissolution of the 
union just as they did !" 

Mr. Adams demanded that, before the house came to the conclusion 
on the motives assumed in this charge, they should send him out to be 
tried before a tribunal of the country. Then he should have the benefit 
secured by the constitution. And he wanted, in that case, to have two 
or three calls made on the departments for information necessary for his 
defense ; and for this purpose he sent several resolutions to the chair. 
The first of these resolutions requested the president to communicate 
copies of the correspondence relating to an act of South Carolina direct- 
ing the imprisonment of colored persons arriving from abroad in the ports 
of that state ; also copies of the act or acts, and of any official opinions 
given by judge Johnson of the unconstitutionality of the said acts. [The 
act here referred to, subjects ayiy colored person landing from a vessel in 
any port of South Carolina, to be arrested and imprisoned, and in case 
of inability to pay the costs incurred by such imprisonment, to be sold 
for the same as a slave. It will be recollected that the honorable Sam- 
uel Hoar, of Massachusetts, was sent by the authorities of that state to 
South Carolina to take measures to test the constitutionality of that law 
in the supreme court of the United States ; and that while there, he was 
threatened with violence, and was compelled to flee from the state for his 
personal safety.] One of the other resolutions called for a copy of any 
letter or letters from the president to a certain member of the house, 
relating to the rule of the house excluding from reception anti-slavery 
petitions, or to any agency of the said member in introducing the rule. 
The first two resolutions, after considerable farther debate, were adopted. 
Upon the two relating to the "21st rule," the vote was not then taken. 

Mr. A. maintained that he was guilty of no off"ense ; he had, on pre- 
senting the petition, declared that it was the last thing he would ever 
vote for. He also repeated what he had said on former occasions, that 
he had given notice to the house, the petitioners, and the whole country, 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

and his coustituents among them, that if they sent to him their petitiona 
for abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, because they expected 
him to support them, they were mistaken. 

After Mr. Adams had occupied two or three days more in his defense, 
a disposition was manifested to get rid of the subject, by laying it on 
the table. He was willing to acquiesce in such a proposition, provided 
it should never be taken up again. The subject was thereupon laid on 
the table, by a vote of 106 to 93 ; and the reception of the petition was 
refused, 40 to 106. 

On the 28th of February, 1842, Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, presented a 
petition from upwards of eighty citizens of Austinburg, in his district, of 
both political parties, it was said, praying for an amicable division of 
the union, separating the free and slave states. Mr. Gr. moved a refer- 
ence of the petition to a select committee, with instructions to report 
against the prayer of the petitioners, and to assign reasons why their 
prayer should not be granted. Mr. Triplett, of Kentucky, considering 
the petition disrespectful both to the house and the man who presented 
it, moved that it be not received. The question on receiving the petition 
was decided in the negative : ayes 24 ; noes, 116. 

The reasons for the prayer of the petitioners were assigned by them in 
a letter to Mr. Gr. from one of them, saying : " If our petitions are to be 
treated with open contempt and malignant insult, and we ourselves held up 
to the world as incendiaries and fanatics ; if the federal government is to 
go on, year after year, increasing its efforts to sustain the system of 
slavery, by the aid of the money, the power and the influence of the 
nation at large : then we ask, and ask sincerely too, for a division." 

Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, offered a resolution, declaring that all 
such petitions should thereafter be deemed offensive, and the member 
presenting them liable to censure. The resolution, however, was not 
received. For quite a different act, however, Mr. Giddings, at a later 
period of the session, incurred a formal censure of the house. 

In October, 1841, the brig Creole left Richmond for New Orleans, 
with a cargo consisting principally of tobacco and slaves, about 135 in 
number. On the 7th of November, the slaves rose upon the crew, killed 
a man on board named Hewell, part owner of the negroes, and severely 
wounded the captain and two of the crew. Having obtained command 
of the vessel they directed her to be taken into the port of Nassau, in 
the British island of New Providence, where she arrived on the 9th 
An investigation was made by British magistrates, and an examination 
by the American consul. Nineteen of the negroes were imprisoned by 
the local authorities as having been concerned in the mutiny and murder. 
Their surrender to the consul, to be sent to the United States for trial 



CASE OF THE BRIG CREOLE. 767 

was refused, until the advice of the government of Engla ad could be had. 
A part of the remaining slaves were liberated and suffered to go beyond 
the control of the master of the vessel and the consul. 

Mr. Webster, secretary of state, in a letter dated January 29th, 1842, 
instructed Mr. Everett, our minister at London, to present the case to 
the British government, " with a distinct declaration, that, if the facts 
turn out as stated, this government think it a clear case for indemnifica- 
tion ;" and, in support of such a claim, he refers to an opinion said to 
have been expressed by his majesty's government in other and similar 
cases, that the rule by which these claims should be decided, was, that the 
claimants must be entitled to compensation who were lawfully in posses- 
sion of their slaves within the British territory, and who were disturbed 
in their legal possession of those slaves, by the functionaries of the British 
government. This admission, Mr. Webster thought to be broad enough to 
cover the case of the Creole. " But," he says, " it does not extend to what 
we consider the true doctrine according to the laws and usages of nations; 
and therefore can not be acquiesced in as the exactly correct general 
rule. It appears to this government, that, not only is no unfriendly 
interference by the local authorities to be allowed, but that aid and 
succor should be extended in these as in other cases which may arise, 
affecting the interests of citizens of friendly states." None except the 
mutineers having come voluntarily within British territory, the laws of 
England affecting and regulating the conditions of persons could pro- 
perly act upon them. It was not complained that English law should 
decide the condition of persons incorporated with British population ; 
but in the case of the Creole, the colored persons were still on board an 
American vessel forcibly put out of the course of her voyage by mutiny ; 
the master desiring to resume it, and calling upon the consul of his govern- 
ment and upon the local authorities to enable him to do so. The vessel 
must be considered as still on her voyage, and entitled to the succor due in 
other cases of distress. This view, he said, was evident from the awkward 
position of the British government in regard to the mutineers still 
imprisoned. What was to be done with them ? How were they to be 
punished ? That government probably would not undertake to try or 
punish them ; and of what use would it be to send them to the United 
States, separated from their ship, and at a period so late as that, if before 
proceedings could be instituted against them, the witnesses might be 
scattered over half the globe? And thus one of the highest offenses 
known to human laws would be likely to go unpunished. 

Lord Palmerston had said on a former occasion, " that slavery being 
now abolished throughout the British empire, there can be no well- 
founded claim for compensation in respect of slaves who, under any cir 



768 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

cumstances, may come into the British colonies, any more than there 
would be with respect to slaves who might be brought into the kingdom." 
Our government, Mr. W. said, saw no ground for any distinction founded 
on an alteration of British law in the colonies. The question did not 
depend on the state of British law. " It is not that in such cases the 
active agency of British law is invoked and refused ; it is, that un- 
friendly interference is deprecated, and those good offices and friendly 
assistances expected which a government usually affords to citizens of a 
friendly power when instances occur of disaster and distress. All that 
the United States require, in these cases, they would expect in the ports 
of England, as well as in those of her colonies. Surely, the influence 
of local law cannot affect the relations of nations in any such matter as 
this. Suppose an American vessel, with slaves lawfully on board, were 
to be captured by a British cruiser, as belonging to some belligerent, 
while the United States were at peace ; suppose such prize carried into 
England, and the neutrality of the vessel fully made out in the proceed- 
ings in admiralty, and a restoration consequently decreed — in such case, 
must not the slaves be restored exactly in the condition in which they 
were when the capture was made ? Would any one contend that the 
fact of their having been carried into England by force set them free ?" 

A different view of the question was taken by Great Britain. Lord 
Brougham stated in the house of lords, others concurring and none dis- 
senting, that " the only treaty by which England or America could 
claim any refugees, either from the other, related exclusively to murder- 
ers, forgers, and fraudulent bankrupts ; and even that treaty had ex- 
pired. There was no international law by which they could claim, or 
we give up, the parties who had taken possession of the Creole ; and 
those persons must stand or fall by British laws only." All agreed that 
there was no authority to surrender the fugitives, nor hold in custody 
the mutineers ; and it was stated that orders had been sent for their 
liberation. 

On the 21st of March, 1842, Mr. Giddings submitted a series of re- 
solutions on a subject which, he said, had excited some interest in the 
other end of the capitol, and in the nation, and which he wished to lay 
before the country. These resolutions declared jurisdiction over slavery 
to belong exclusively to the states; that by the 8th section of the 1st 
article of the constitution, the states had surrendered to the federal gov- 
ernment jurisdiction over commerce and navigation upon the high seas; 
that slavery, being an abridgment of the natural rights of man, can exist 
only by force of positive municipal laiv, and is necessarily confined to 
the territorial jurisdiction of the power creating it ; that when the brig 
Creole left the territorial jurisdiction of Virginia, the slave laws of that 



CENSURE OF MR. GIDDINGS. 769 

fltate ceased to have jurisdiction over the persons on board the sjiid brig, 
who became amenable only to the laws of the United States, and who, 
in resuming their natural rights of personal liberty, violated no law of 
the United States ; and that all attempts to reenslave the said persons, 
or to exert our national influence in favor of the coastwise slave trade, 
or to place the nation in an attitude of maintaining a " commerce in 
human beings," were subversive of the rights and injurious to the feel- 
ings and the interests of the free states, unauthorized by the constitution, 
And incompatible with our national honor. 

Mr. Ward, of New York, moved the previous question on these re- 
solutions. Mr. -Everett, of Vermont, with the view, probably, to their 
discussion, moved to lay them on the table. This motion was rejected : 
ayes, 52 ; noes, 125. The previous question having been seconded, and 
the main question ordered, Mr. Giddings, in the midst of the confusion 
and excitement which ensued, withdrew his resolutions. 

Mr. Botts then offered a resolution, upon the adoption of which he 
intended to move the previous question. The preamble to the resolution 
deprecated the resolutions of Mr. Giddings, " touching a subject of 
negotiation between the United States and Great Britain of a most deli- 
cate nature," and as possibly " involving those nations and the whole 
civilized world in war ;" declared it to be the duty of every good citizen., 
and especially of every representative of the people, to discountenance 
all efforts to create excitement and division among the people under such 
circumstances ; and denounced them as justifying mutiny and murder ' 
in terms shocking to all sense of law, order and humanity : therefore 
" Resolvedi That this house hold the conduct of the said member as 
altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable, and deserving the severe 
condemnation of the people of this country, and of this body in par- 
ticular." 

An excited and confused debate ensued, which continued during the 
remainder of that day and the next, and in which sundry questions of 
order, appeals, and of privilege were discussed. Several members having 
expressed a desire that Mr. Giddings should be heard in his defense, he 
rose and said : " I stand before the house in a peculiar situation." Mr. 
Cooper, of Georgia, objected to his proceeding, but at the request of his 
colleagues withdrew his objection. But Mr. G. did not resume the floor. 
He, however, addressed to the reporter of the National Intelligencer a 
note stating, that when he was called to order the last time, he had writ- 
ten and desired to. state to the house as follows : 

" Mpw Speaker : I stand before the house in a peculiar situation. It is 
proposed to pass a vote of censure upon me, substantially for the reason 
that I differ in opinion from a majority of the members. The vote is 

49 



770 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

about to be taken without giving me time to be beard. It would be idle 
for me to say that I am ignorant of the disposition of a majority to pass 
the resolution. I have been violently assailed in a personal manner, but 
have had no opportunity of being heard in reply. I do not now stand 
here to ask for any favor or to crave any mercy at the hands of the 
members. But in the name of an insulted constituency — in behalf of 
one of the sovereign states of this union — in behalf of the people of 
these states and the federal constitution — I demand a hearing, agreeably 
to the rights guarantied to me, and in the ordinary mode of proceeding. 
I accept of no other privilege ; I will receive no other courtesy." 

The resolution of Mr. Bottswas adopted by a vote of 125 to 69 ; the 
preamble, 129 to 66. 

Mr. Giddings then addressed to the speaker a letter of resignation, 
which was the next day (23d) laid before the house. He immediately 
departed for his residence in Ohio — was reelected on the 20 th of April, 
at a special election called by the governor of the state, by a majority 
of about 3,500 votes over his opponent — and returned to his seat in the 
house on the 5 th of May. 



CHAPTER LXIII. 

THE TARIFF OF 1S42. PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. BRITISH COLONIAL TRADE. 

NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION SETTLED. 

The gradual reduction of duties provided by the compromise tariff 
of March, 1833, had nearly brought them to the lowest rate established 
by that act. Sundry manufactures were languishiug, from the want, as 
was supposed, of adequate protection ; and a material augmentation of 
the revenue had become necessary to supply the wants of the govern- 
ment. Hence, whatever difference of opinion may have existed in regard 
to the necessity of additional protection to manufactures, some measure, 
it was universally conceded, was necessary to increase the public reve- 
nue ; and, as it was contrary to the general policy of the government to 
resort to direct taxation, congress was compelled to adopt the alternative 
of a revision of the tariff. 

Owing to delays in obtaining the necessary information upon which to 
base their report, the committee on manufactures of the house of repre- 
eontatives did not make their report until the 31st of March, 1842. 



THE TARIFF OP 1842. 771 

This report stated, that the estimated expenses of the government were, 
for the current year, about $26,000,000 ; -which would leave a deficit of 
about $14,000,000. Such were the prospective demands upon the trea- 
sury — increased by the enormous expenses of the Florida war which was 
not yet terminated — that some permanent provision for an increased 
revenue was indispensable. The committee presumed the effect of the 
depressed price of cotton and all our principal articles of produce, the 
derangement of the currency, state and individual indebtedness abroad, 
and the general stagnation of business, would be to lessen importations. 
The 20 per cent, duties to be collected after the 30th of June next, 
under the tariff of 1833, would not yield a revenue exceeding about 
$15,000,000. 

The committee, being of the opinion that specific duties afforded the 
best security against frauds, which opinion was confirmed by that of 
intelligent merchants and manufacturers, they had been to a great extent 
retained. The committee state the provisions of their bill as follows : 

1. A general ad valorem duty of thirty per cent., with few exceptions, 
where the duty is on that principle. 

2. A discrimination is made, for the security of certain interests 
requiring it, by specific duties, in some instances below, in others above, 
the rate of the general ad valorem duty. 

3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to dis- 
crimination, is made at the rate at which it was in 1840, after the deduc- 
tion of four-tenths of the excess over twenty per cent, under the act of 
1833. Many departments of industry were successful under this reduc- 
tion, which could not bear the great reduction of January last, and 
which would be overwhelmed under the full operation of that act. 

The views of the committee in relation to the encouragement of 
domestic industry by duties on imports, are stated at great length. A 
few paragraphs are given. 

" All the great interests of the country aire now in an extremely 
depressed condition ; every branch oi industry is paralyzed. How is it 
that, in a time of profound peace, with a country abounding in natural 
resources, . . . and blessed by Heaven beyond any other people 
who ever existed, the voice of complaint should come up from every 
part of the land ? 

" There are several causes for the present depression of property and 
general stagnation of business, one of which will be admitted to be the 
large amount of our importations over the amount of exports. This 
depresses our home industry, and draws from the country annually large 
balances in specie, crippling our banks, and depriving them of the power 
to grant the necessary facilities. The same causes produced the exhaus- 



772 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tion of our resources and the embarrassmeut which were the principal 
cause of the adoption of the constitution. As stated in the very able 
petition from Windsor county, Vermont, ' from 1783 to 1789, the trade 
of the thirteen old states was perfectly free to the whole world. The 
result was, that Great Britain filled every section of our country with 
her manufactures of wool, cotton, linen, leather, iron, glass, and all other 
articles used here, and in four years she swept from the country every 
dollar and every piece of gold,' &c. 

" In the last term of Gen. Jackson's administration, the imports 
exceeded the exports each year, making an excess of $129,681,397. 

" The excess of imports during the three first years of Mr. Van 
Bureu's administration, was nearly seventy millions. In 1840, for the 
first time for ten years, there was an excess of exports. In 1841, the 
imports exceeded the exports about three millions. 

'* A tarifi" of duties which, while it will supply the necessary revenue, 
will check excessive importations, and prevent the flow of specie abroad 
for the payment of large balances, will do much to restore the prosperity 
of the nation. * * * 

"And why should we not rely more upon ourselves and on our policy? 
Is there anything in the policy of other nations to induce us to lead the 
way in free trade ? Free trade ! Where shall we go to find an exam- 
ple for it ? All the great nations of Europe are protecting their own 
industry, and encouraging their own manufactures, to an extent before 
unknown. France, Prussia, the German States, and even Russia, are 
making rapid advances in manufactures, under a system of rigorous 
restrictions. 

" Until the European nations change their policy, there can be no 
really free trade for the United States. Should we only adopt this 
policy, free trade will be only on one side, and that not ours. We shall 
enjoy just so much commerce with them as they in their good pleasure 
may allow us. Shall we Ipok to England for our example of free trade ? 
England imposes prohibitory duties on all articles she can raise or manu- 
facture. This is her settled policy. Should an insufficient tariff, with 
her vast surpluses poured in upon us, break down our establishments, 
and we again import our cotton, woolen and other manufactured goods, 
what would she receive in return for them ? With what could we pay 
her ? She will not take from us our wheat and corn, unless her popula- 
tion is in a starving condition, because they will interfere with her own 
agricultural interests. The products of our fisheries and our forests 
will find no admission there, because she must encourage her own fishe- 
ries and her colonial timber trade. She will take a few thousand hogs- 
heads of tobacco but charged with a duty and excise of ten times its 



THE TARIFF OF 1842. 773 

original cos-:.^ and thus yielding a twelfth part of her revenue from 
imports. She will not take from us any article of the growth, produce^ 
or manufacture of this country, except our cotton, which has become 
essential to her cotton manufactures — that branch of her industry which 
is now essential to her national wealth and power — and she is straining 
every nerve to become independent of foreign nations for this. 

" That most numerous and important class — the agriculturists — have 
the greatest interest in the prosperity of manufacturing and mechanical 
labor, A change of policy which should break these down, would 
deprive them of their best markets. Wherever manufacturing establish- 
ments are located, villages spring up around them ; their eflfects are im- 
mediately seen in the increased value of land in the vicinity. Perhaps 
it would not be extravagant to state that the establishment of manufac- 
tures had added an amount to the agricultural wealth of the country 
equal to the capital employed in manufactures. Few are aware of the 
3xtent of demand for agricultural produce, for the supply of a single 
manufacturing establishment. An interesting statement on this subject 
is annexed to the testimony of Mr. Scheuck." 

Annexed to the report of the committee was a statement with statis- 
tical tables, prepared by Mr. Triplett, a member from Kentucky, and 
designed to show the great inequality of the duties levied in the United 
States upon European goods, and those to which the productions of this 
country are subjected in Europe. 
The products of American industry sell in Europe, after 

deducting freight and charges, except duties, in round 

numbers, for - - . , ... $204,500,000 
Of which we receive - 91,000,000 



And lose in paying duties, $113,500,000 

The products of European industry sell in the United 
States, after deducting freight and other charges, except 

duties, for $90,000,000 

Of which the Europeans receive .... 73,000,000 

And lose in paying duties, $17,000,000 

Showing that we pay upwards of 100 per cent, to European nations, 
while they pay to us less than 20 per cent. " But," he says, " great 
and unjust as this inequality is, on the total amount of exportations 
from the United States, it becomes still more startling in its manifest 
injustice when examined as to a particular export — the staple, to a great 
extent, of several particular states. Unmanufactured tobac6o pays, in 
Great Britain, since the 15th May, 1840, a duty of 76 cents per pound, 



774 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

or upwards of 1250 per cent., valuing the pound of tobacco at 6 cents; 
in Austria, within a fraction of 6 cents per pound, or 100 per cent.; in 
Prussia, 3 1-2 cents per pound, or upwards of 50 per cent. ; and France 
levies by her Regie, or indirect duty, about one dollar per pound, or 
1,666 2-3 per cent." 

Excluding Russia, Prussia, and Portugal, for which he had not yet 
completed his calculations, Mr. Triplett says : 
On this amount of average annual value of tobacco shipped 

from the United States, for the years 1839 and 1840, 

to wit, on $9,225,145 

There is levied by the other European nations an annual 

tax of 32,463,540 



Showing the amount for which American tobacco sells in 
Europe, exclusive of freight and other charges except 

duties, to be $41,688,685 

of which foreign governments retain upwards of three-fourths, and the 
tobacco planters receive less than one-fourth. In view of these facts he 
thinks it no wonder that the tobacco growing states had increased less in 
population and wealth than any other states in the union ; and that other 
agriculturists had suffered more or less from a similar cause. 

As usual, a counter report was made by the minority of the commit- 
tee on manufactures, affording another instance of the opposite conclu- 
sions of able minds from the same facts. The report gives a descrip- 
tion of the condition of the people of Great Britain, which it considers 
to be the result of her restrictive or protecting policy, and says, that 
" a system productive of such effects upon her population, ought not to 
be favored by a government established, as ours is, to protect the rights 
and happiness of all, without regard to ranks or sectional interests." 
But admitting the system of high protection to be beneficial to her 
people, it affords no evidence that the same system 13 suited to our cir- 
cumstances. 

lu regard to the benefits supposed to be derived by a community from 
the establishment of a factory within it, the minority contend that these 
benefits are lost or neutralized by the system under consideration. 
They say : " The whole neighborhood would be benefitted, if the govern- 
ment did not, under the guise of protection to the labor of each, extract 
a heavy amount of the profits of each and of all by high taxation ; not 
by a tax operating directly upon the manufactures or the raw material, 
both of which can be exported to foreign markets, and thus escape the 
tax, but indirectly by a tax on the food of the laborer, who at last is the 
sole producer This tax is levied in the shape of high duties, which 



THE TARIFF OF 1842. 775 

prevents foreign grain and other provisions from coming into competi- 
tion mih the home product, and thus, by keeping the latter at high 
prices, forces the laborer to demand an equivalent in high wages, in order 
to enable him to live ; and this increase of his wages retroacts again, to 
aeutralize the benefit which the farmer derives from the protection. A 
mere revenue duty on foreign grain would not have produced these 
eflFects ; and in such a case the amount of revenue would have been 
increased by the increase of imports from abroad, while now no revenue, 
comparatively, is derived from that source, in consequence of the high 
duty." 

The minority illustrate their argument by the example of the opera- 
tions of the woolen factory of Mr. Schenck of Dutchess county, New 
York, of whose testimony the committee had availed themselves in pre- 
paring their report. They say : " Thus, continues Mr. S., by the capital 
of $140,000 of this single factory, a market is furnished for the pro- 
ducts of that country, of $116,000; (consisting of fleece wool, soap, 
teazles, and firewood, $76,281 ; and $40,000, the wages of operatives.) 
The labor for 170 operatives, alone, supports not less that 500 persons, 
and these consume, weekly, of the products of agriculture, not less than 
the value of $200 per week, in beef, pork, flour, butter, eggs, milk, 
cheese, &c., equal to $10,400 per annum. To sum up the whole, in his 
own words : ' Thus $1,422^000 is the agricultural capital now in requisi- 
tion to supply the manufacturing investment of £140,000.' This sup- 
ply consists of the wool, soap, teazles and firewood, used in the factory ; 
of winter fodder and summer pasture for the sheep, and provender for 
the horses ; and food for 170 operatives, with their families, estimated 
at 500. 

" Here, then, is a large expenditure, beneficial to most, if not all, of 
the inhabitants of the country, in a greater or less degree, in the same 
manner as the whole population of England is more or less benefited by 
their manufactures ; that is, as long as the manufacturer can find a pro- 
fitable market for his products, and as long as the government abstains 
from heavy direct taxation outweighing the benefits. Is it surprising 
that the people of Dutchess county, looking alone to the immediate 
benefits to themselves, without regard to the ultimate efi"ects on them- 
selves, or to the immediate efi"ect upon other portions of the union, should 
be the advocates of high protection ? But let us pursue the statement 
of Mr. Schenck, not for showing its temporary benefits to the people of 
Dutchess county but for the purpose of showing its ultimate results 
upon the interests of the whole union, and also upon the people of 
Dutchess county themselves." 

They then make the following statement • 



"^6 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Duties paid on imported articles consumed in the factory, 

olive oil, coal, and indigo, $1,724 



Value of manufactures produced, $186,925 



Duties on this sum of $186,925, at 33 1-3 per cent., about 

the rate at which the foreign article would be imported, $62,308 



Duty at 20 per cent, on home valuation, - - - - $37,385 

Whole duty actually paid, as above, . - . . 1,724 



Loss to the revenue by excluding the foreign article, - - $35,661 



They then say : " Let not the laborer in the factory, or the farmer, or 
the grazier, who supply it, be deceived by the immediate benefits to 
themselves : they must also look to the immediate and ultimate efi"ect 
upon the revenue from customs, and reflect, that, if home manufactures 
exclude the foreign, they must reduce or destroy revenue from fordgn 
manufactures ; and that the government will be forced, of necessity, to 
supply revenue for its ordinary wants, to heavy taxation on tea and 
coffee, now admitted free, and on salt and other foreign products of com- 
mon use among them; and, when these fail to supply a sufficient income, 
then to a direct taxation on their lands, buildings, sheep, and capital 
and labor, as is now the case in England ; for revenue must be had, and 
to an amount daily increasing, as the country increases, for the neces- 
sary increasing expenditures of the government. The immediate benefit, 
then, is lost, in the certainty of the ultimate burden, which, as in Eng- 
land, will reduce a large mass of our people to a taxation pressing them 
to starvation." 

The minority then proceed to show the effects of the system upon the 
different portions of the country, and upon the revenue. For this pur- 
pose they select four of the principal branches of manufacture: wool, 
iron, leather, and cotton, — stating the value of the manufactures of each 
in the two divisions of the union ; the one embracing the eight states of 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, 
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, with a free population of 
6,258,000 ; and the rest of the union containing a free population of 
8,316,000, and a slave population of 2,486,000 ; in all 10,802,000. 

The value of the manufactures of wool, iron, leather, and cotton, in 
the year 1840, are stated as follows : 

Productions of the eight states, - - - $102,100,000 

Productions of the rest of the union, ... 23,030,000 

Foreign products consumed in the union, - - 21,672,000 

Foreign products paying duty into the treasury, - - 19,498,000 



THE TARIFF OF 1842. 777 

Consumption of the above in the eight states, - - 48,140,000 

Consumption in the rest of the union, ... 72,210,000 

Consumption of imports in eight states, - • 8,667,800 

Consumption of imports in all others, - - - 13,002,200 

Consumption of imports paying duty in eight states, - 7,797,000 

Consumption of the same in all others, - - - 11,698,200 

" The first of these results," they proceed to say, " is that the eight 
states produced in 1840, $79,020,000 of the above four classes of manu- 
factures more than all the other eighteen states and territories, and that 
they consumed of that amount $48,140,000, leaving the residue, after 
deducting the foreign exports, of $4,926,000, say $25,954,000, as the 
consumption of the rest of the union, of the domestic manufactures of 
woollens, iron, leather, and cottons, of the eight states. Now, if we 
assume the average duties on similar articles to have been, in 1840, 35 
per cent, ad valorum, which no one can, we think, doubt, who will ex- 
amine the table No. 3, annexed to the report of the majority, the duty 
on the $25,954,000, if the same amount had been imported, would have 
amounted to $9,083,000, while the duty actually paid into the treasury 
on all the imports of the like four classes of manufactures, calculated on 
the same rate of duty, paid into the treasury only $6,823,000. Now, 
all the manufacturers who have been examined before the committee, 
seem to agree that, unless the duties on those articles are kept as high 
as they were in 1840, they can not live, or compete with the foreign 
manufacture in our own market ; and in this opinion the majority of the 
committee seem to have concurred, by reporting a bill assessing the 
same amount of duties on those imports as were levied in 1840. If so, 
the consumers pay, in the increased price of the domestic product over 
the foreign, the whole duty of 35 per cent, ad valorem, (that is, $9,083,- 
000,) which whole amount is paid by the eighteen states and territories 
in the following proportions, according to representative population, at 
the ratio of 65,500, that is to say, dividing the whole into 128 parts : 
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, pay 43 parts, or $3,054,000; 
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, 23 parts, or $1,632,000 ; Kentucky 
and Tennessee, pay 21 parts, or $1,490,000; North and South Caro- 
lina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 41 parts, or 
$2,907,000. In these estimates we have taken the two-fifths of the 
slave population unrepresented as equivalent to the consumption of the 
state of Maine, and the three territories and the District. Of this 
whole amount, not one dollar goes into the treasury, but the whole to 
the manufacturei's of the eight states, as the result of the diS"erence of 
price secured to them by the protective duty. This being the fact, the 
inquiry is presentee to these eighteen states, whether, as a mere matter 



778 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of profit and loss, those states, or any portion of them, gain, in the pro- 
tection afforded to their jit oductions^ an equivalent for this amount of 
indirect taxation? We think not, especially when it is considered that 
this consumption of the foreign article, thus excluded by the domestic, 
would have paid into the treasury the greater part if not the whole of 
the $9,083,n00, at no greater cost to them, and of a greater portion of 
which they would have got the benefit of the expenditure. And for 
this amount of duty, and the $29,994,000 of the consumption, they have 
actually paid in their foreign exports, though not into the treasury, or 
to the foreign producer , as will appear by the statement of foreign ex- 
ports above. The distribution which we have thus made of this tax 
among the states, as above, must, of course, be modified by the greater 
or less amount of their own domestic production of the several kinds." 

While the majority proposed to raise the duties in order to increase 
the revenue, the minority seemed to apprehend danger to the revenue 
from the increase of home manufactures and the consequent diminution 
of importations ; and they named several articles of which the quantity 
imported had been so diminished by the home manufacture, as to re- 
duce the duties on them to an inconsiderable amount. 

They controverted the doctrine of the protectionists, that the addi- 
tional tax to the consumer is neutralized or compensated by the bene- 
fits derived from the domestic manufacture ; and reassert, and endeavor 
to establish those which are usually maintained by the opponents of 
protection. They endeavored to show that the effect of high duties and 
protection hitherto in our country had been to excite ruinous competi- 
tion, and to prevent an increase of revenue on particular articles of 
manufacture, of large consumption, proportioned to our increasing neces- 
sity for revenue. They also endeavored to show, that, whatever tempo- 
rary benefits might have resulted to the people in manufacturing sections 
from high protection, those benefits would be only temporary ; and thav, 
if the farther protection now demanded should be afforded, it would 
hasten the evil day to them, which must come, and greatly aggravate 
the evil when it does come — a day when the legislation most friendly 
to the manufacturer, could not provide relief 

No question in political economy has been more fruitful of discussion 
than that of protection to domestic industry by duties on imports ; none, 
probabl}', on which public opinion is still more equally divided. States- 
men of gigantic intellects, the most successful business men, of equal 
sagacity in private affairs, have, from the same evidence, formed directly 
opposite conclusions on this subject. 4 

While the bill reported by the committee on manufactures was pend- 
ing in the committee of the whole., the bill accompanying the report of 



THE TARIFF OF 1842. 779 

the secretary of the treasury, (Mr. Forward,) was reported to the house 
by Mr. Fillmore, from the committee of ways and means. This was 
considered as more particularly a revenue bill. 

It will be remembered that, on the 30th of June, the last reduction 
provided by the compromise act was to take place. There being no 
prospect of the passage of any new tariff law in time to prevent the 
operation of that act, a bill had been reported, and was taken up the 
10th of June, to extend, until the 1st of August next, all laws regulat- 
ing duties existing and in force on the 1st of June, with o. proviso, thai 
nothing therein contained should suspend the operation of the distribu- 
tion law — the law passed at the extra session the preceding year (1841) 
to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the states. 
The first half yearly distribution under that act was to be made the 1st 
of July. Besides being simply designed to afford time to pass a per- 
manent law, this proposed temporary act was deemed necessary for 
another purpose. Under the compromise act, there was to be from and 
after the 30th of June a home valuation, and cash duties. There had 
as yet been no law enacted to regulate the collection under those pro- 
visions ; and it was questioned whether there was any law to enforce 
them. 

In the debate on this bill, the proviso became a prominent topic of 
discussion. It will be recollected, that the distribution act contained a 
provision, that if at any time the duties under the compromise should 
be raised above the rates prescribed by that act, then the distribution 
should cease, and be suspended, until the cause of the suspension should 
be removed. This proviso to the distribution was, at the time of the 
passage of the bill, highly objectionable to many of the friends of dis- 
tribution ; but its adoption was found necessary to insure its passage ; 
as the advocates of a low tariff were apprehensive that the abstraction 
of the money arising from land sales from the national revenues, would 
create a necessity for an increase of duties. Those who were in favor 
of high protective duties, desired the removal of the proviso of the dis- 
tribution act, that the tariff might be raised without interfering with 
distribution. The day having been spent in the discussion of this pro- 
posed temporary extension bill, in committee of the whole, the committee 
rose and reported ; when Mr. Fillmore offered a resolution to terminate 
the debate on the bill in half an hour; but the house " being evidently 
in a bad temper," Mr. F. waived the question for the day. 

On the 14th, the resolution was modified so as to close the debate in 
committee the next day at 2 o'clock, and adopted. On that day, after 
having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the proviso which 
prohibited the suspension of the distribution law, the bill was passed by 



780 THE amer:can statesman. 

the house, 116 to 103. It passed the senate 24 to 19, and was sent to 
the president for his approval ; who, on the 29th, returned it to the 
house with his I forlid. 

The bill was objected to because it abrogated, for the time, the pro- 
visions of the compromise act, that is, it continued the existing duties 
for one month after the 30th of June, when a reduction was to take 
place. The alleged necessity for the act was to enable congress to pro- 
vide rules and regulations for assessing the duties on imports after the 
30th of June, according to the hquie valuation and cash payments of 
duties then to take place; yet the bill provided, that if, before the 1st 
of August there should be no further legislation upon the subject, the 
existing laws were to be the same as if this act had not been passed. 
The distribution which was to be made the 1st of July, was also to be defer- 
red until the 1st of August. He considered the present laws sufficient to 
enable the collecting officers, under the directions of the secretary, to 
levy the duties imposed by the act of 1833. The government, he said, 
was under moral obligation to adhere to the principles of the compro- 
mise. That act provided " that duties shall be laid for the purpose of 
raising such revenue as may be necessary to an economical administra- 
tion of the government." It therefore justified any enlargement of 
duties required by the real exigencies of the public service. He admit- 
ted that an increase of duties was necessary ; and congress might so dis- 
criminate as to give incidental protection to manufacturing industry. 

But he considered it as an indispensable condition of an increase of 
duties, that the distribution of the proceeds of the land sales should be 
suspended ; and which, by the distribution act, were to cease whenever 
the duties imposed by the compromise act should be raised above 20 per 
cent. ; but the proviso of the bill under consideration would continue 
the distribution, notwithstanding, after the 1st of August. To abandon 
the principle for a month, is to open the way for its total abandonment. 
If such is not meant, why postpone at all ? Why not let the distribu- 
tion take place on the 1st of July ? 

The veto was equally the cause of joy to one party and of indignation 
to the other. Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, said he had never felt a 
moment of such spontaneous, heartfelt thanksgiving to Heaven as he did 
at this moment. It had come from above to check the house's mad 
career, when it had undertaken to violate a sacred compact between the 
north and the south, and had rescued the country from impending civil 
war. If the madness of party should carry such a bill again, it would 
be vetoed again This placed John Tyler in the head and forefront of 
the battle foi the institutions of his country, and there the people would 
sustain him 



PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. 78i 

Mr. Grang-^r called upon members to maintain their ground against 
♦he extraordinary assumption of executive authority developed in the 
veto message, and in support of the manufacturing interest as well as the 
distribution. 

Mr. Saltonstall deplored that the debate had been prematurely entered 
upon, but contended against this unprecedented exercise of the veto 
power. The veto went on the naked principle of expediency. It was 
his opinion that the duties after to-morrow could not be collected, with- 
out a system of regulations. 

Mr. Fillmore asked, on what principle this veto was based. The presi- 
dent could not congent that the distribution should cease for a single day. 
That was the profession ; but it appeared to be but a pretense. What 
was the law which that message vetoed ? It authorized the collection 
of duties for a single month as they were levied on the first of January 
last, to allow time for the consideration of a permanent revenue for the 
country ; and postponed the distribution of the proceeds from the sale 
of the public lands till the month should expire, and congress could 
provide the necessary supplies for the exhausted treasury. Did the veto 
prevent distribution ? By no means : it reduced the duties, in eflFect, to 
20 per cent., and authorizod the distribution of the land fund among the 
states, which would take place the day after to-morrow. Mr. F. said the 
secretary of the treasury doubted whether the duties could be collected, 
but the president had told the house that any farther law was unneces- 
sary ; he had power enough in his own hands, and he should use it. The 
question then was, whether congress or the executive should legislate for 
the people of this country. 

Mr. Gushing advocated the veto power and this exercise of it ; and 
insisted upon the land proceeds going into the treasury. It was the duty 
of the house to retract. He appeared to doubt that the revenue could 
be collected without farther legislation, but congress should immediately 
pass the necessary laws. The question was whether the government 
should be brought to a stand by the refusal of the house to perform its 
duty. 

Mr. Briggs (next day) followed in opposition to the message, and to 
some of the remarks of his colleague (Mr. Gushing,) who had said that 
the issue was not between this house and the president, but between this 
house and the people. Had the president no issue with the people that 
had raised him to his office ? "Was not an overwhelming majority of the 
party that placed him in power in favor of distribution ? His colleague 
said the house had an issue with the president. He (Mr. B.) had no 
such miserable views. 

The debate was continued for several days, when, (July 4,) the ques 



782 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tion was taken upon the passage of the bill, notwithstanding tho veto ; 
ayes, 114; noes, 91; absent, 31. Rejected; two-thirds not voting in 
the affirmative. 

The house, the next day, again took up the tariff or revenue bill, 
and the day following adopted a resolution offered by Mr. Fillmore, 
that the debate on the. bill should cease on or before the 12th, at 12 
o'clftck. It was accordingly debated, and, having received sundry amend- 
ments, passed the house, July 16, by a vote of 116 to 112. This bill 
provided to continue the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, 
notwithstanding the proposed increase of duties. It passed the senate 
on the 5th of August, by a vote of 25 to 23. The vote in both houses 
was almost a strict party vote. Only one democrat in the house, Mr. 
Parmenter, of Massachusetts, voted for the bill. Against it were 16 
whigs, all but one from southern states. In the senate, the votes in its 
favor were all, from whigs ; against it, 3 whigs, Preston, Graham and 
Rives, all southern senators. The bill was sent to the president for 
his approval, and on the 9th was returned to the house with another 

VETO. 

This veto — " ditto " veto, it was called — was taken up the next day 
for consideration. Mr. Adams addressed the house ; and in the course 
of his speech made some severe animadversions upon the numerous vetoes 
of the president. He considered this last veto an " extraordinary exercise 
of power." The president, he said, seemed to be acting with reference 
to a reelection. He had united himself in some measure to the demo- 
cratic party ; but he (Mr. A.) predicted that, if that party succeeded, 
they would be as much thwarted by the president, as the party now in 
the majority had been. 

On motion of Mr. Adams, the message was referred to a committee 
of thirteen members, who made a report, written by Mr. Adams, contain- 
ing a review of the condition of the country, the action of congress, the 
fre(|uent application of the executive veto to measures adopted by con- 
gress, and particularly the reasons assigned by the president for 
applying the power of negative to the last bill. The committee say : 

" They perceive that the whole legislative power of the union has been 
for the last fifteen months, with regard to the action of congress upon 
measures of vital importance, in a state of suspended animation, 
strangled by the five times repeated stricture of the executive cord. 
They observe, that, under these unexampled obstructions to the exercise 
of their high and legitimate duties, they have hitherto preserved the most 
respectful forbearance towards the executive chief; that while he has, 
time after time, annulled by the mere act of his will their commission 
from the people to enact laws for the common welfare, they have forborne 



PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. 783 

even the expression of their resentment for these multiplied insults and 
injuries — they believed they had a high destiny to fulfill, by administer- 
ing to the people in the form of law remedies for the sufi^erings which 
they had too long endured. The will of one man has frustrated all their 
labors and frustrated all their powers. 

" The power of the present congress to enact laws essential to the 
welfare of the people has been struck with apoplexy by the executive 
hand. Submission to his will is the only condition upon which he will 
permit them to act. For the enactment of a measure earnestly recom- 
mended by himself he forbids their action unless coup/ed vfith a condition 
declared by himself to be on a subject so totally difi'erent, that he will 
not suffer them to be coupled in the same law. With that condition 
congress can not comply. In this state of things he has assumed, as the 
committee fully believe, the exercise of the whole legislative power to 
himself, and is levying millions of money upon the people without any 
authority of law," 

The report concludes with a resolution proposing an amendment to the 
constitution, requiring, instead of two-thirds, " a majority of the whole 
number" of members of each house to pass a bill against the president's 
objections. It was signed by ten of the committee. 

Another report was presented, by two of the committee, C. J. Inger- 
soll and James I. Roosevelt, in which they say it is not for their protest 
to explain or enforce the executive objections. Letting them speak for 
themselves, they vindicate constitutional rights and deprecate wrongs by 
congress. They considered it the duty of congress, not to adjourn with- 
out enacting a law for revenue. They should not afford the president s ^ 
great a triumph. 

The remaining member, Mr. Gilmer, made a counter report and pro 
test, in defense of the president, and in opposition to the tariff bill and 
the distribution of the proceeds of land sales. 

Impelled by the necessity of providing additional revenue, a bill was 
in a few days hastened through the house, the same as that before passed, 
the clause having been struck out which required distribution, and the 
bill so modified as to admit free of duty, tea imported in American ves- 
sels from beyond the Cape of Good Hope, and coffee. The vote was 105 
to 103. The bill was sent to the senate, where, having received some 
amendments, (afterwards concurred in by the house,) it passed 24 to 23 , 
being saved only by Mr. Wright's having voted with the whigs. No 
other democrat voted for the bill. The necessity of adopting some 
measure for revenue, rather than his approval of the bill, probably 
induced Mr. Wright to vote in its favor. The bill was approved by tho 
president. 



r84 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

A separate bill was then passed, repealing the proviso of the distribu- 
tion act, so as to allow the distribution to take place notwithstanding the 
increase of duties ; but the bill was retained in the hands of the presi- 
dent, and thus defeated. 

Besides the numerous petitions at this session of congress for a modi- 
fication of the tariff, there were several memorials from the state of 
Maine, praying for relief from the effects of the want of reciprocity in 
the colonial trade between the United States and Great Britain, as 
established by the arrangement of Mr. M'Lane in 1830. * * * 
It was stated in a memorial from Portland, presented to the house by 
Mr. Fessenden, that the effect of that arrangement had been to cripple 
our trade with the British West India colonies — which, though indirect, 
had been valuable — and to increase largely that of Great Britain. Ninc- 
tenths of that intercourse had been carried on in American vessels; 
whereas, the amount of British and American tonnage was now about 
equal. The effect upon Maine had been peculiarly disastrous. Before 
the treaty went into operation, Maine had ten thousand tons of shipping 
employed in the trade with the British North American colonies alone. 
She had now been driven out entirely, while the shipping of the colonies 
had been increased four-fold, and they had a direct and unembarrassed 
trade with this country. 

Another petition from that state declared that the opening of our 
ports to Great Britain had been obtained by fraud. She had promised 
reciprocity, but she would not grant it. A part only of her colonial 
ports had been opened. Those where return cargoes could be obtained 
for our vessels, remained closed. Nor did we, at the colonial free ports, 
enjoy equal privileges. Our vessels were subjected to many vexations 
and charges from which British vessels were exempt. The petitioners 
said, of the trade in plaster of paris, so important to that state, Maine 
had lost the greater part. Nearly 200,000 tons annually were exported 
from the provinces to the United States ; the most of which had been 
transported in American vessels, but was now for the most part done by 
British vessels. From some of the quarries, we were entirely excluded. 
The same was true of the grindstone trade. The petitioners therefore 
prayed, that the effect of the proclamation of the president in 1830, 
making our ports free to the navigation of Great Britain, be done away, 
and that the navigation acts of 1818, 1820 and 1828 be revived. No 
action beyond the reception of the petitions appears to have been taken 
upon the subject. 

The ineffectual attempts hitherto to settle the north-eastern boundary 
question have been already mentioned. The want of a territorial line had 
been the source of constant irritation to the inhabitants of both ooun- 



NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION SETTLED. 785 

tries residing within the disputed territory, and of great annoyance to 
those of Maine in particular. Military forces had been called out by 
the authorities of both Maine and Canada to defend their respective ter- 
ritories against intrusion and depredation. A citizen of Maine had been 
taken prisoner on disputed territory. The act, however, was disclaimed 
by the British authorities, and the prisoner released. This controversy 
had been for many years a standing topic of presidential communication 
to congress, and had generally been represented as being in a state unfa- 
vorable to a speedy termination. 

A new attempt at amicable adjustment by negotiation was made in 
1842 ; and lord Ashburton was appointed by the British government as 
minister extraordinary to the United States for this purpose. He 
arrived in this country the 3d of April, and was introduced in due form 
to the president on the 5th, The expectations of a successful negotia- 
tion, founded upon the character of the British envoy, and the belief of 
the sincerity of the professed pacific intentions on the part of his govern- 
ment, were not disappointed. Commissioners appointed by the legisla- 
tures of Maine and Massachusetts, and a|so by the government of the 
province of New Brunswick, participated in the negotiation. On the 
9th of August, a treaty of boundary was concluded, to the almost entire 
satisfaction of the negotiators, and to the country generally. Mutual 
concessions had of course been found necessary, with some of which, as it 
was natural to presume, the people of Maine were not fully satisfied. 

The line, to some extent, corresponded to that proposed by the king 
of the Netherlands. The claim to that portion of the Madawaska settle- 
ment lying south of the St. John's river, strenuously maintained hereto- 
fore by Great Britain, was, after a warm contest with lord Ashburton, 
relinquished to the United States. The Aroostook, also in dispute, was 
yielded by Great Britain. A tract lying north of the St. John's and 
claimed by Maine, was relinquished for the free navigation of that entire 
river. Rouse's point also, of which Great Britain had for many years 
had possession, was relinquished to the United States. This treaty pro- 
vided for settling the entire line between the two countries to the Rocky 
Mountains ; for the final suppression of the slave trade .; and for the 
giving up of criminals, fugitives from justice, in certain cases. 

For the suppression of the slave trade, each of the parties was to main- 
tain in service, on the coast of Africa, an adequate squadron, carrying 
not less than eighty guns ; to be independent of each other, but acting 
in concert and cooperation. Persons charged in either country with 
murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, piracy, robbery, or 
forgery, and found in the other, were to be delivered up to justice. 

The treaty was ratified by Great Britain the 1 3th of October, and on 

50 



786 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the 10th of November, proclaimed by the president of the United States. 
The news of the ratification by the British government was received 
with general satisfaction. In some places public rejoicings were held 5 
and much applause was bestowed upon Mr. Webster for his successful 
negotiation of the settlement of this long standing difl&culty. Some of 
the British papers contained expressions of strong dissatisfaction with 
the concessions made by lord Ashburton. 



CHAPTEK LXIV. 

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. THE PROJECT DEFEATED. DEATH OF MES.SU?. 

UPSHUR AND GILMER. 

Since the rejection, by the administration of Mr. Van Bureu, of the 
proposition for the annexation of Texas to the union, the subject had 
been permitted to rest in a state of comparative slumber. The project, 
however, had been by no means abandoned. Both the purpose and the 
object of annexation had been avowed by southern men and southern 
legislatures. A report of a committee of the legislature of Mississippi 
speaks of the importance of the annexation of Texas. It declares that 
slavery is " highly beneficial to the country within whose limits it is 
permitted to exist;" that "the south has very peculiar interests to 
preserve ;" that " protection to her best interest will be afi"orded by the 
annexation of Texas ; an equipoise of influence in the halls of congress 
will be secured, which will furnish us a permanent guaranty of protec- 
tion." 

The intentions of the south had been thus avowed by Mr. Wise, a 
confidential friend of president Tyler, on the floor of congress in 1842 : 
" True, if Iowa be added on the one side, Florida will be added on the 
other. But there the equation must stop. Let one more northern 
state be admitted, and the equilibrium is gone — gone for ever. The 
balance of interests is gone — the safeguard of American property — of 
the American constitution — of the American union, vanished into thin 
air. This must be the inevitable result, unless, by a treaty with 
Mexico, the south can add more weight to her end of the lever ! Let 
the south stop at the Sabine, (the eastern boundary of Texas,) while the 
north may spread unchecked beyond the Bocky Mountains, and the 
southern scale must kick the beam.''^ 

Mr. Gilmer, a member of congress, and formerly governor of Vir- 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 787 

ginia, wrote in January, 1842, to a friend: " Having acquired Louisi- 
ana and Florida, we have an interest and a frontier on the Gulf of 
Mexico, and along our interior to the Pacific, which will not permit us 
to close our eyes or fold our arms with indifference to the events which 
a hw years may disclose in that quarter. We have already had one 
question of boundary with Texas ; other questions must soon arrive, 
under our revenue laws, and on other points of necessary intercourse, 
which it will be dijfficult to adjust. The institutions of Texas, and her 
relations with other governments, are yet in that condition which 
inclines her people (who are our countrymen) to unite their destinies 
with ours. This must be done soon, or not at ally 

Resolutions of the legislature of Alabama in favor of annexation had 
been communicated to congress in 1843. And in the legislature of 
South Carolina, resolutions were proposed, asserting that Texas was 
already a part of the union. 

President Tyler, in his annual message of December, 1843, intimated 
a strong disposition to interpose by force to put an end to the war 
between Texas and Mexico. The United States, he said, had an imme- 
diate interest in the matter. Texas had for eight years maintained her 
independence, which had been recognized by other powers ; and the 
parent state ought so to regard and recognize hers ; in doing which, 
Mexico would follow the example of Great Britain in respect to the 
United States. Texas was at the same time making movements towards 
annexation. Resolutions, and also a bill for this purpose, were intro- 
duced into the legislature. And it soon appeared that although the 
object was not made public, negotiation was in progress. It was stated 
in a Texas paper, that the opinion which had been there entertained, 
that president Tyler was secretly in favor of annexation, had proved to 
be correct. Despatches lately sent to the United States related to this 
subject. It appeared, so said the paper, that Mr. Upshu , the American 
secretary of state, had proposed to Mr. Van Zandt, the Texas charg6 
at Washington, to open a negotiation for annexing Texas to the union. 
This proved to be true. Mr. Webster resigned the office of secretary 
of state in May, 1843. No negotiation seems to have been attempted 
while he was in office. He was known to be opposed to the annexation. 
Mr. Upshur was appointed in June following. On the 27tti of April, 
1844, notwithstanding the injunctions of secrecy upon the action of the 
senate, the New York Evening Post announced the conclusion of a 
treaty for the annexation of Texas, which was then pending in the sen- 
ate, and contained the president's message and documents which accom- 
panied it. The treaty had been concluded at Washington on the 12th 
of April, by John C. Calhoun, secretary of state, on the part of the 



/S3 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

United States, and Isaac Van Zandt, and J. Pinckncy Henderson on 
the part of Texas, and communicated to the senate on the 22d, and 
ordered to be printed in confidence for the use of the senate. 

From the correspondence accompanying the message, it would seem 
that the fresh impulse given to the annexation movement on the part 
of our government, was the apprehension that Grreat Britain was about 
to enter into a negotiation with the opponents of slavery in Texas, which 
contemplated its abolition in that country. This apprehension pur- 
ported to be founded on a letter from a private citizen of the United 
States in London, stating that a Mr. Andrews, deputed by the Texas 
abolitionists, was then there for that purpose. The project was said to 
be, that money was to be advanced by a company to be organized in 
England, to purchase the slaves in Texas, and lands were to be taken in 
payment for the money thus advanced. Mr. Upshur, in his letter of the 
8th of August, 1843, to Mr. Murphy, our charg6 in Texas, after having 
made the above statement, says, " a movement of this sort can not be 
contemplated by us in silence ;" and he states as a reason, that it was 
not to be supposed that the design of England was limited to the eman- 
cipation of a few thousand slaves in Texas ; but that it was a part of 
her plan " to seek to abolish slavery throughout the entire continent 
and islands of America." As sugar and cotton could be raised cheaper 
by slave labor than by the labor of white men. Great Britain desired the 
abolition of slavery in the United States, Texas, and Brazil, in order 
to create a market for the productions of her East and West India colo- 
nies. It was stated, also, that Texas would afford a shelter for fugitive 
slaves. In view of these and other reasons given in his letter, he presses 
the subject upon the attention of Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. Murphy, in his answer, dated September 23 and 24, 1843, having 
given some account of this Mr. Andrews, says he had, on his return 
from London to Texas, been driven away by force. The letter says 
also : " But the negotiation now on foot between Texas and Mexico, 
through the medium, or rather under the control, of Great Britain, has 
changed entirely the whole character of affairs, and demands the most 
prompt and energetic action of the government of the United States;" 
and he advises that immediate steps be taken for the safety of our 
" domestic institutions." Simultaneously with the date of the above 
letters from Mr. Murphy, September 23, Mr. Upshur writes again to 
Mr. Murphy, expressing the deep concern of the president in regard to 
the policy of England, and requests Mr. Murphy to communicate fully 
and freely with Mr. Thompson, our minister in Mexico. He also 
expresses fears that the British are endeavoring to obtain control of the 
gulf of Mexico, and urges the most untiring vigilance of the movements 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 789 

of that government. He had already written (September 21,) to Mr. 
Everett, our minister at London, expressing the same alarm, and direct- 
ing him to use all diligence in obtaining information on the subject. 
And on the 28th he wrote again to Mr. Everett, (confidentially,) saying 
it was " impossible to suppose that England was actuated by a mere 
feeling of philanthrophy ;" and he argues the necessity of slave labor in 
the production of sugar, cotton, and rice, the physical constitution of 
the African being much better adapted to tropical climates than that of 
the European. Their condition also would be made worse by emanci- 
pation. If Texas was a free state, the slaves of the South would only 
have to cross the Sabine or the Red River, and they would find them- 
selves freemen. 

Mr. Everett, in his answer, November 3, 1843, says he was told by 
lord Aberdeen, that " the suggestion that England had made or intended 
to make the abolition of slavery the condition of any treaty arrange- 
ment with Texas, was wholly without foundation." General Hamilton, 
a commissioner from Texas,had applied for a loan to Texas to be used 
to aid her in obtaining from Mexico the recognition of her independence, 
but his proposal had been declined. It however had no connection with 
the abolition of slavery. Among the correspondence there is also a 
letter from Mr. Pakenham, British minister at Washington, inclosing 
a letter from Lord Aberdeen, dated December 26, 1843, disavowing any 
design on the part of that government to interfere in the matter of 
slavery. He says : " Much as we should wish to see the slaveholding 
states placed on the firm and solid footing which we believe is to be 
obtained by general freedom alone, we have never in our treatment of 
them made any difference between the slaveholding and free states of 
the union. * * * Although we shall not desist from those open 
and honest efforts which we have constantly made for procuring the aboli- 
tion of slavery throughout the world, we shall neither openly nor 
secretly," &c. 

Delicately as the noble lord expressed the disapprobation of his govern- 
ment of slavery, and their determination to continue open and honest 
efforts to procure its abolition, Mr. Calhoun, in a reply to Mr. Paken- 
ham, takes exception to this avowal, by Great Britain, that it was "her 
settled policy and the object of her constant exertions to abolish slavery 
throughout the world." The president, he said, regarded with still 
deeper concern the avowal of the desire of Great Britain to see slavery 
abolished in Texas. And Mr. Calhoun tells Mr. Pakenham, " that the 
consummation of her (Great Britain's) wishes in reference to Texas, 
would be followed by hostile feelings and relations between that coun- 
try (Texas) and the United States, which could not fail to place her 



790 THE AMERICAN STAIESMAN. 

under the influence and control of Great Britain." This, he says, 
" from the geographical position of Texas, would expose the weakest 
and most vulnerable portion of our frontier to inroads, and place in the 
power of Great Britain the most effectual means of effecting in the 
neighboring states of this union what she avows to be her desire to do 
in all the countries where slavery exists." And he informs Mr. Paken- 
ham that the general government, acting in obedience to its obligation 
to protect the states against danger, had already concluded a treaty with 
Texas for her annexation to the union ! He then undertakes to con- 
vince Mr. P. that the African race in this country are in a better con- 
dition as slaves than they would be if free, and that it would be far from 
wise or humane — indeed it would be " the greatest calamity to the race" 
to change their condition. But we may not pursue this sketch of the 
correspondence on this subject. 

On the 8th of June, the question was taken in the senate on the rati- 
fication of the treaty, a majority of two-thirds being necessary to ratify. 
Only 16 senators voted in the affirmative, and 25 in the negative. Of 
the senators from the free states who voted for the treaty, were Messrs. 
Buchanan and Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Breese, of Illinois, and 
Mr. Woodbury, of New Hampshire. Of the democrats from the free 
states who voted agair.r.t the treaty, were Mr. Fairfield, of Maine, Mr. 
Atherton, of New Hampshire, Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, Mr. "Wright, 
of New York, Messrs. Allen and Tappan, of Ohio, and Mr. Benton, of 
Missouri, a slave state. 

The vote on the question of ratification does not, however, indicate 
the views of senators on the abstract question of annexation. One 
objection to the treaty was, that it would involve the United States in 
a war with Mexico. Another was, that Texas claimed disputed terri- 
tory ; and to receive Texas would compel our government to defend the 
claim against Mexico. It was also objected, that annexation was uncon- 
stitutional. 

In the debate in secret session on the ratification, a large number of 
senators took part; among whom were Messrs. Benton, Choate, "Wright, 
"Walker andM'Duffie; the two last in favor of the treaty; the others 
in opposition. 

Mr. Benton's great speech was delivered on the 16th, 17th, and 20th 
of May, and was in support of resolutions offered by him on the 13th, 
declaring, 

1st. That the ratification of the treaty would be the adoption of the 
Texian war with Mexico, and would devolve its conclusion upon the 
United States. 

2d. That the treaty-making power does not extend to the power of 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 791 

making war, and that the president and senate have no right to make 
war, either by declaration or adoption. 

3d. That Texas ought to be reunited to the American union, as soon 
as it can be done with the consent of a majority of the people of the 
United States and of Texas, and when Mexico shall either consent to 
the same, or acknowledge the independence of Texas, or cease to prose- 
cute the war against her, (the armistice having expired,) on a scale com- 
mensurate to the conquest of the country. 

Mr. Benton contended that the treaty proposed to annex much more 
territory than originally belonged to Texas ; and therefore the proposi- 
tion for the " reannezation of Texas''' was a fraud in words. It was 
not pretended, even by those who used that word, that the province of 
Texas, when it was ceded in 1819 to Spain, extended farther than the 
boundaries included between the Sabine and the Rio del Norte, and the 
Gulf of Mexico and the Red River, whilst the republic of Texas, as 
defined in the treaty, included the whole extent of the Rio del Norte 
and embraced portions of the department of New Mexico with its cap^ 
tal, being many hundreds of miles of a neighbor's dominion, with whom 
we had treaties of peace and friendship and commerce — a territory 
where no Texian force had ever penetrated, and including towns and vil- 
lages and custom-houses now in the peaceful possession of Mexico. 

In a message to the senate subsequent to that accompanying the treaty, 
the president had asserted the doctrine, that the treaty signed by him 
was ratified from that moment ; and, consequently, that part of Mexico 
above mentioned must be and remain " reannexed," until the acquisition 
should be rejected by the senate. In relation to this Mr. Benton speaks 
thus : 

" The president in his special message of Wednesday last, informs us 
that we have acquired a title to the ceded territory by his signature to 
the treaty, wanting only the action of the senate to perfect it ; and that, 
in the mean time, he will protect it from invasion, and for that purpose 
has detached all the disposable portions of the army and navy to the 
scene of action. This is a caper about equal to the mad freaks with 
which the unfortunate emperor Paul, of Russia, was accustomed to 
astonish Europe about forty years ago. By this declaration, the thirty 
thousand Mexicans in the left half of the valley of the Rio Del Norte 
are our citizens, and standing, in the language of the president's mes- 
sage, in a hostile attitude towards us, and subject to be repelled as in- 
vaders. Taos, the seat of the custom-house, where our caravans enter 
their goods, is ours ; governor Arraijo is our governor, and subject to be 
tried for treason if he does not submit to us ; twenty Mexican towns and 
villages are ours , and their peaceful inhabitants, cultivating their fields 



792 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

and tending their flocks, are suddenly converted, by a stroke of the presi- 
dent's pen into American citizens, or American rebels. This is too bad : 
and, instead of making themselves party to its enormities, as the presi- 
dent invites them to do, I think rather that it is the duty of the senate 
to wash its hands of all this part of the transaction by a special disap- 
probation. The senate is the constitutional adviser of the president, and 
has the right, if not the duty, to give him advice when the occasion re- 
quires it. I therefore propose, as an additional resolution, applicable to 
the Rio del Norte boundary only — the one which I will read and send 
to the secretary's table — and on which, at the proper time, I shall ask 
the vote of the senate. This is the resolution : 

" Resolved, That the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del 
Norte into the American union, by virtue of a treaty with Texas, com- 
prehending as the said incorporation would do, a part of the Mexican 
departments of New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, 
would be an act of direct aggression on Mexico ; for all the consequences 
of which the United States would stand responsible." 

Having shown the effect of the treaty on the Rio Grande frontier, 
Mr. B. took up the treaty itself, under all its aspects and in its whole 
extent, and assumed four positions in relation to it; namely: 

1. That the ratification of the treaty would be, of itself, war between 
the United States and Mexico. 

2. That it would be unjust war. 

3. That it would be war unconstitutionally made. 

4. That it would be war upon a weak and groundless pretext." 

Mr. M'Duffie, on the 23d of May, replied to Mr. Benton. The ques- 
tion as to boundary, he said, had been exhausted by the conclusive 
argument of Mr. "Walker, of Mississippi, and he would not discuss it. 
It had been contended by senators, that the ratification of the treaty 
would subject us to the charge of a violation of the public faith. In 
answer to this objection, Mr. M'Duffie referred to the case of France, in 
1778. When the United States were waging an unequal war with 
Great Britain, she came to our aid, recognized our independence, and 
formed with us a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. Had any 
historian mentioned this as a breach of national faith on the part of 
France ? Had our governmetit contracted such an alliance with Texas 
when Santa Anna was marching to meet a disgraceful defeat at San 
Jacinto, it would have violated no national faith, nor any dictate of 
international law. He contended that she had maintained her indepen- 
dence ; we had recognized it : so had Great Britain, France, Holland, 
and Belgium. She possessed all the attributes of national sovereignty, 
and the elements of self-government, more so than Mexico herself. 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 793 

Texas, he said, had a right to enter into a treaty of annexation if she 
chose ; and who would deny her that right ? Could she not dispose of 
herself as she pleased ? And did it not follow that the United States 
had a corresponding and an equal right to receive her ? The right of 
property implied the right of the proprietor to sell, and the correlative 
right of every other person to purchase. 

But it was said the ratification would involve us in a war with Mexico. 
So he himself thought in 1836, when Texas was a " rebellious province ;" 
but since the battle of San Jacinto, Mexico had not made a single mili- 
tary movement toward recovering her lost dominions. She had done 
nothing that deserved the name of war. Appealing to the gasconading 
proclamation of Mexico, the senator from Missouri had asked, " Is this 
peace ?" The orders to the home squadron, and the army of observa- 
tion sent to the Sabine, to watch the movements of Mexico, should any 
be made, and promptly report them to head quarters, that they might 
as promptly be reported to congress, the senator had pronounced an act 
of war. If to employ a corps of observation was to make war, then we 
were at war with the powers in the West Indies, on the Mediterranean, 
and on the coast of Africa ; for we had squadrons in every sea to pro- 
tect our commerce, and to make war on pirates. The proclamations of 
Mexico, and the counter proclamations and defiances of Texas, he did 
not consider war, as did the senators on the other side. 

Mr. M'Duffie referred to the proposition to Mexico made by Mr. Clay, 
when secretary of state under Mr. Adams, in 1825, to purchase Texas, 
when the war between Spain and Mexico was still in existence. So in 
1829, when Mexico was invaded by a large army, and her ports were 
blockaded, Mr. Van Buren, by order of Gen. Jackson, made to Mexico 
a proposition to purchase Texas. 

Haviug advocated the right to receive Texas, he proceeded to show 
the duty of making the treaty. Great Britain should not be allowed 
to obtain the control of Texas by a treaty of guaranty stipulating for 
extensive commercial privileges. He had never till now realized the 
justice of Mr. Monroe's declaration, that no European power must ever 
be permitted to establish a colony on this continent. And he urged the 
danger to the slave property of the south, if Great Britain should get 
control of Texas. They had a right to demand from the government 
protection to their property. Annexation, too, would operate as a 
safety-valve to let off their superabundant slave population, which would 
render them more happy, and the whites more secure. And with regard 
to the time of annexation, he adopted the language of Gen. Jackson, 
" now or never." 

Immediately after the treaty was rejected, Mr. Benton gave notice of 



794 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

a bill for the annexation of Texas, with the consent of Mexico. On the 
lOlh of April, pursuant to notice, he brought in the. bill, -n-hich autho- 
rized and advised the president to open negotiations with Mexico and 
Texas for adjusting boundaries, and annexing Texas to the United 
States, on the following bases: 

1st. The boundary to be in the desert prairie west of the Nueces, and 
along the highlands and mountain heights which divide the waters of 
the Mississippi from those of the Rio del Norte, and to latitude 42 
degrees north. 

2d. The people of Texas, by a legislative act or otherwise, to express 
their assent to annexation. 

3d. A state to be called " Texas," with boundaries fixed by herself, 
and an extent not exceeding that of the largest state in the union, to be 
admitted into the union by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with 
the original states. 

4th. The remainder of the territory, to be called " The South-west 
Territory," and to be held and disposed of by the United States as one 
of their territories. 

5th. Slavery to be forever prohibited in the northern half of the 
annexed territory. 

6th. The assent of Mexico to such annexation and boundary to be 
obtained by treaty, or to be dispensed with when congress may deem such 
assent unnecessary. 

7th. Other details to be adjusted by treaty so far as they may come 
within the scope of the treaty-making power. 

On presenting his bill, Mr. Benton spoke nearly two hours. He said 
his was not a new burst of affection for the possession of the country, as 
his writings a quarter of a century ago would testify. He disapproved 
the course of the executive in not having first consulted congress. The 
rejection of the treaty having wiped out all cause of offense to Mexico, 
he thought it best to commence again, and at the right end — with the 
legislative branch, by which means we should proceed regularly and con- 
stitutionally. As to the boundary, he had followed the basis laid down 
by Jefferson, fixing, as the limit to be adopted in settling the boundary 
with Spain, all the territory watered by the tributaries to the Missis- 
sippi, and had made it applicable to Mexico and Texas. He did not 
attach so much importance to the consent of Mexico as to make it an 
indispensable condition, yet he regarded it as something to be respect- 
fully sought for. But if it were not obtained, it was left to the house 
to say when that consent became unnecessary. He wished to continue 
in amity with Mexico. Those who underrated the value of a good 
understanding with her, knew nothing of what they spoke. Mexico 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 795 

took the products of our farms, and returned the solid silver of her 
mines. Our trade with her was constantly increasing. In 1821, the 
year in which she became independent, we received from her $80,000 ; 
in 1835, $8, 500, 000. When we began to sympathize with Texas, this 
trade rapidly fell off, until it got down to one million and a half. As 
the earliest and most consistent friend of Texas, he desired peace with 
Mexico, in order to procure the ultimate annexation of Texas. If Mex- 
ico, blind to her interests, should refuse to let Texas take her natural 
position as a part of the valley of the Mississippi, let congress say in 
what case the consent of Mexico might cease to be necessary. 

Ml". Benton severely censured that party, who, while an armistice was 
subsisting between Mexico and Texas, which bid fair to lead to peace, 
rushed in with a firebrand to disturb these relations of amity. For this 
act they must stand condemned in the eyes of Christendom. Every 
wise man must see that Texas and Mexico were not naturally parts of 
a common country. The settlements of Mexico had never taken the 
direction of Texas. In a north-eastern direction, they had not extended 
much over the Rio Grande ; they had come merely to the pastoral 
regions, but had never professed strength enough to subdue the sugar and 
cotton sections. He alluded to his own far back prophecies and writings 
concerning Texas. Messrs. Walker and Woodbury he termed " Texas 
neophytes," who had been so anxious to make great demonstrations of 
love for Texas. For himself he had no such anxiety, because his senti 
ments had always been known. With him it was not a question " now 
or never," but Texas then, now, and always. 

Mr. Benton said he had provided against another Missouri agitation. 
For those who regarded slavery as a great moral evil, in which he, per- 
haps, did not differ much from them, there was a provision which would 
neutralize the slave influence. He would not join the fanatics on either 
side — those who were running a muck for or against slavery. 

Mr. M'Dufl&e replied to Mr. Benton in a long, desultory speech, appa- 
rently intended rather to provoke by satire or irony, and to excite laugh- 
ter, than to convince by argument. He remarked at the conclusion of 
his speech, that the bill of Mr. Benton was as likely as the treaty to 
bring us into a war with Mexico. 

Mr. Benton, rising immediately, exclaimed, " But with this great 
difference ! this great difference ! that my bill refers the question of war 
with Mexico to congress, where all questions of war belong, and the 
negotiators of this treaty made war themselves ! They, the president 
and his secretary of state, made the war themselves, and made it uncon- 
stitutionally, perfidiously, clandestinely, and piratically. The secret 
CM'ders to our army and navy were piratical ; for they were without law, 



r§6 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



and to waylay and attack a friendly power with whom we have a treaty 
of amity; and as a member of a court martial, I would sentence to be 
shot any officer of the army and navy who should dare to attack Mexican 
troops, or ships, or cities, under that order. Officers are to obey lawful 
orders, and no others; and they are not to make war by virtue of any 
presidential orders, until congress has declared it." Mr. B. proceeded 
at some length to contrast his bill with the treaty, from which, he said, 
it was as diiferent as light from darkness. It was respectful to Mexico, 
requiring her to be consulted before, not after the treaty.- It assumed 
her consent to be necessary now, in the present state of the question 
between her and Texas ; but it supposed a time when it would not be 
necessary, and of which congress was to judge. The ratification of the 
treaty would have been the adoption, by the senate, of the war made by 
the president and secretary. 

Mr. M'Duffie had taken exception to Mr. Benton's application of the 
word neophyte to the new friends of Texas. Mr. B. here indulged in 
a strain of mingled humor and satire. " The word can imply nothing 
offensive or derogatory. It is, indeed, a chaste and classic phrase, 
known to the best writers, both sacred and profane. St. Paul uses it in 
his epistles, (the Greek copies;) and, after naming him, no higher 
authority is wanted for what is gentlemanly and scholastic, as well as 
what is pious and Christian; but bring me a dictionary, (speaking to a 
page of the senate;) bring me Richardson, letter N, and see what he 
says." 

The book was brought. Mr. B. read : 

" Neophyte — In French, neophyte ; in Italian, ncofito ; in Spanish, 
neophyto; Latin, neophytus; Greek, neophutos; from neoSy new, and 
phuton^ a plant, a new plant ; figuratively, a new convert ; one newly im- 
planted (s. c.) in the church ; and consequently, newly converted to the 
Christian faith ; one newly initiated, newly introduced or employed." 

"This (resumed Mr. B.) is Richardson's definition and etymology ; 
and nothing can be more classic or innocent. It is pure Greek, only 
modified in sound and termination, in going through six languages ; and, 
both literally and figuratively, has an innocent and decent signification." 

After some farther play upon the meaning and application of this 
word, he proceeds: " But to be done with joking. The senator is cer- 
tainly a new plant, and an exotic, in the Texan garden ; and those 
friends of his, the defense of whom has called him from a sick bed to 
do what he has not done, defend them — a task which would indeed re- 
quire ' angels and ministers of grace,' these friends of his, they are also 
new plants and exotics and strange plants in the same good garden ; and 
of them I must say, moreover, what I cannot and will not say of him — • 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 797 

they are intrusive, noxious, and poisonous -weeds in that fair garden ! I 
remember the time when they flung the whole garden, as a worthless 
incumbrance, away. And they enter it now, as the serpent did Eden, 
with deceit in the face and death in the heart." 

Mr. Benton then proceeds to the discussion of the treaty ; and in the 
course of his remarks, says : " The senator undertakes to answer my 
speech, but he avoids all the hard places. He says nothing of the two 
thousand miles of Mexican territory, (over and above Texas, and to 
which no Texiau soldier ever went, except to be killed or captured,) and 
which, by the treaty is annexed to the United States. He says nothing 
about the private engagement for war against Mexico, and sending our 
troops to join president Houston. He says nothing about this open 
assumption of the purse and the sword; nothing about the admission 
of new states by treaty, without the consent of congress ; nothing about 
the loss of Mexican commerce, and the alienation of all the South Ameri- 
can states from our cause ; nothing about the breach of the armistice, 
and breach of treaties with a friendly power ; nothing about the DufiF 
Green stories for making pretexts for predetermined conclusions ; no- 
thing, in fact, to the pregnant indications which show that the treaty was 
made, not to get Texas into the union, but to get the south out of it. 
He defends the feelings, not the doings of his friends. The great ob- 
jections to the treaty are in its encroachments upon New Mexico, 
Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas ; in its adoption of the Texian 
war ; in its adoption of that war unconstitutionally ; in its destruction 
of our trade with Mexico; in our breach of treaties, in the alienation 
of Mexico and all the South American states from us, our permanent 
loss of trade and friendship with those powers • and the seeds of disunion 
(dissolution of our union) so carefully and so thickly planted in it. 
Above all, he says nothing to the great objection to admitting new states 
by treaty — an act which congress only can do. These are the great ob- 
jections to the treaty; and all these the defender of the president and 
his secretary leaves undefended. 

* * * "The senator from South Carolina, in his zeal to defend his 
friends, goes beyond the line of defense and attacks me ; he supposes me 
to have made anti-annexation speeches ; and certainly, if he limits the 
supposition to my speeches against the treaty, he is right. But that 
treaty, far from securing the annexation of Texas, only provides for the 
disunion of these states. The annexation of the whole country as a 
territory, and that upon the avowed ground of laying it all out into 
slave states, is an open preparation for a Missouri question and a disso- 
lution of the union. I am against that ; and for annexation in the mode 
pointed out in my bill. I am /or Texas — for Texas with peace and 



798 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

honor, and with the union. Those who want annexation on these terma 
should support my bill; those who want it without peace, without honor, 
and without the union, should stick to the lifeless corpse of the defunct 
treaty," 

The president, having been foiled in his scheme of annexation by 
treaty, appealed to the house of representatives, in a message, dated the 
10th of June, two days after the rejection of the treaty, accompanied by 
the rejected treaty with the correspondence and documents which had 
been submitted to the senate. The president says in the message, that 
ne does not perceive the force of the objections of the senate to the 
ratification. Negotiations with Mexico, in advance of annexation, would 
not only prove abortive, but might be regarded as ofi'ensive to Mexico 
and insulting to Texas, We could not negotiate with Mexico for Texas, 
without admitting that our recognition of her independence was fraudu- 
lent, delusive, or void. Only after acquiring Texas, could the question 
of boundary arise between the United States and Mexico, a question 
purposely left open for negotiation with Mexico, as affording the best 
opportunity for the most friendly and pacific arrangements. He asserted 
that Texas no longer owed allegiance to Mexico ; she was, and had been 
for eight years, independent of the confederation of Mexican republics. 
Nor could we be accused of violating treaty stipulations. Our treaty 
with Mexico was merely commercial, intended to define the rights and 
secure the interests of the citizens of each country. There was no bad 
faith in negotiating with an independent power upon any subject not 
violating the stipulations of such treaty. 

In view of the importance of the subject, he invited the immediate 
attention of the representatives of the people to it ; and for so doing he 
found a sufficient apology in the urgency of the matter, as annexation 
would encounter great hazard of defeat, if something were not noiv done 
to prevent it. He transmitted to the house a number of private letters 
on the subject, from citizens of Texas entitled to confidence. 

Much had occurred to confirm his confidence in the statements of 
Gen. Jackson, and of his own statement in a previous message, that 
" instructions had already been given by the Texan government to pro- 
pose to the govcriiuient of Great Britain forthwith, on the failure of the 
treaty, to enter into a treaty of commerce, and an alliance offensive and 
defensive." He also referred the house to a letter from Mr. Everett 
from Loudon, which he seemed to construe into an intention to interfere 
with the contemplated arrangement between the United States and 
Texas. Although he regarded annexation by treaty as the most suita- 
ble form in which it could be effected, should congress deem it proper 
to resort to any other expedient compatible with the constitution, and 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 799 

likely to accomplish the object, he was prepared to yield his prompt and 
active cooperation. He says : " The question is uot as to the manner 
in which it shall be done, but whether it shall be accomplished or not. 
The respoHsibility of deciding this question is now devolved upon you." 

The message was communicated at too late a day for deliberation and 
action at this session. Congress adjourned on the 17th of June. 

On the 28th of February of this year, (1844,) vacancies occurred in 
the offices of secretary of state and of secretary of the navy, by the death 
of Abel P. Upshur and Thomas W. Gilmer. Captain Stockton, com- 
mander of the United States ship Princeton, had been occupied in pre- 
paring a new apparatus for war, and had invited a large number of per- 
sons to witness its effects, and spend the day on board his ship. Among 
the guests were the members of the government and their families. On 
their passage down the Potomac, one of the large guns, carrying a ball 
of 225 pounds, was fired several times. On their return up the river, 
Captain Stockton consented to fire another shot, which burst the gun, 
and killed a number of the persons on board, among whom were the 
two secretaries. Mr. Upshur had been appointed in June, 1843, as 
successor to Hugh S. Legare, who had succeeded Mr. Webster, and 
died about a month after his appointment. Mr. Calhoun was appointed 
in the place of Mr. Upshur ; and John Y. Mason, of Virginia, in the 
place of Mr. Gilmer. [Note N.] 



CHAPTER LXV. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 

The annexation of Texas was becoming a party question. As such 
it constituted a leading issue between the two great parties at the pre- 
sidential election of this year. 

The persons designated by public sentiment as candidates for the pre- 
sidency, were Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Clay. The place appointed for 
the holding of the nominating conventions was Baltimore. The whig 
convention was to take place on the 1st of May; that of the democrats 
on the 27th. Agitated as the public mind was on annexation, the posi- 
tion of the candidates on this question naturally became the subject of 
inquiry. Mr. Clay having received several letters since his departure, 
in December, on a southern tour, requesting an expression of his opinion 
upon the question of the annexation of Texas to the United States, he 
addressed to the editors of the National Intelligencer, from Raleigh 



Umiy THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

North Carolina, a letter dated April 17, 1844, designed as an answer 
to the various communications which he had received. 

Mr. Clay, expressing his views in general terms, said : " If, without 
the loss of national character, without the hazard of foreign war, with 
the general concurrence of the nation, without any danger to the integrity 
of the union, and without giving an unreasonable price for Texas, the 
question of annexation were presented, it would appear in quite a differ- 
ent light from that in which, I apprehend, it is now to be regarded. " 

In relation to the acquisition and relinquishment of Texar, he says: 
" The United States acquired a title to Texas, extending, as I believe, 
to the Eio del Norte, by the treaty of Louisiana. They ceded and 
relinquished that title to Spain by the treaty of 1819, by nhich the 
Sabine was substituted for the Rio del Norte as our western ] oundary. 
This treaty was negotiated under the administration of Mr. Monroe, 
and with the concurrence of his cabinet, of which Messrs. Crawford, 
Calhoun, and Wirt, being a majority, all southern gentlemen, composed 
a part. When the treaty was laid before the house of represer tatives, 
being a member of that body, I expressed the opinion, which I then 
entertained, and still hold, that Texas was sacrificed to the acquisition 
of Florida. We wanted Florida ; but I thought it must, from iti posi- 
tion, inevitably fall into our possession ; that the point of a few years 
sooner or later, was of no sort of consequence, and that in giving five 
millions of dollars and Texas fOr it, we gave more than a just eq^uiva- 
lent. But if we made a great sacrifice in the surrender of Texas, we 
ought to take care not to make too great a sacrifice in the attempt to 
reacquire it. 

" My opinions of the inexpediency of the treaty of 1819 did not pre- 
vail. The country and congress were satisfied with it ; appropriations 
were made to carry it into effect ; the line of the Sabine was recognized 
by us as our boundary, in negotiations both with Spain and Mexico, 
after Mexico became independent ; and measures have been in actual pro- 
gress to mark the line, from the Sabine to Red river, and thence to the 
Pacific ocean. We have thus fairly alienated our title to Texas, by 
solemn national compacts, to the fulfillment of which we stand bound by 
good faith and national honor. It is, therefore, perfectly idle and ridi- 
culous, if not dishonorable, to talk of resuming our title to Texas, as if 
we had never parted with it. We can no more do that than Spain can 
resume Florida, France, Louisiana, or Graat Britain the thirteen colon- 
ies, now composing a part of the United States. 

" During the administration of Mr. Adams, Mr. Poinsett, minister of 
the United States at Mexico, was instructed by me, with the president's 
authority, to propose a re-purchase of Texas ; but he forbore even to 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 801 

make an overture for that purpose. Upon hia return to the Unifed 
States, he informed me, at New Orleans, that his reason for not making 
it was, that he knew the purchase was wholly impracticable, and that 
he was persuaded that, if he made the overture, it would have no other 
effect than to aggravate irritations, already existing, upon matters of 
difference between the two countries." 

Mr. Clay said the revolt of Texas had been greatly aided by citizens 
of the United States — in a manner, and to an extent which brought 
upon us the reproach of an impartial world ; and we ought not to give 
occasion for the imputation of having instigated and aided the revolu- 
tion with the ultimate view of territorial aggrandizement. Our recog- 
nition of the independence of Texas, had not affected or impaired the 
rights of Mexico ; and she had continued to assert the right to resubju- 
gate Texas. A temporary suspension of hostilities had been agreed on ; 
but, he presumed, with the purpose, upon the termination of the armis- 
tice, of renewing the war and enforcing what she considered to be her 
rights. And if Mexico still persevered in asserting her rights by actual 
force of arms, our government, if it acquired Texas, would also acquire 
all her incumbrances, and among them, the war with Mexico. He 
would not involve the country in a war for the acquisition of Texas. 
There were those who regarded a war with Mexico with indifference, on 
account of her weakness. Justice and good faith were equally due to a 
weak as to a powerful nation. But were we certain that the contest 
would be with Mexico alone? Had we any security that countless 
foreign vessels, under the Mexican flag, would not prey upon our defense- 
less commerce in the Mexican gulf, or on the Pacific and every other 
ocean and sea ? Might Mexico obtain no allies among the great Euro- 
pean powers ? 

Assuming the annexation of Texas to be war with Mexico, was it 
competent for the treaty-making power to plunge the country into war, 
without even deigning to consult congress, to which alone the constitu- 
tion entrusts the power to' declare war ? 

Another objection to receiving Texas as an integral part of the union 
was, that it would be in decided opposition of the wishes of a consider- 
able portion of the confederacy. He thought it more wise to harmonize 
the confederacy as it existed, than to introduce into it a new element 
of discord and distraction. Nor did he think the framers of the con- 
stitution contemplated adding to the union foreign territory out of 
which new states were to be formed. So Mr. Jefferson and others be- 
lieved. The acquisition of Louisiana and Florida might be defended 
upon the ground of their peculiar relation to the United States. No 
such necessity existed in the present case. 

51 



802 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mr. Clay said there were those who favored and those who opposed 
the annexation of Texas, from its supposed effect upon the balance of 
political power between two great sections of the union. He discoun- 
tenanced the motive of acquiring territory for the purpose of strengthen- 
ing one part of the union against another. If to-day Texas should be 
obtained to strengthen the south, to-morrow Canada might be acquired 
to add strength to the north. In the progress of this spirit of universal 
dominion, the part of the uniou now the weakest, would find itself still 
weaker from the impossibility of securing new theaters for those peculiar 
institutions which it is charged with being desirous to extend. But he 
doubted whether Texas would really add strength to the south. From 
the information which he had of that country, he thought it susceptible 
of a division into five states of convenient size and form ; three of which 
he thought would be unfavorable to the employment of slave labor, and 
would be free states, while only two of them would be slave states. 
This might serve to diminish the zeal both of those who oppose and 
those who urge annexation. 

Besides, by the annexation of Texas, the United States would become 
responsible for her debt, which he had seen stated at thirteen millions 
of dollars. 

In the event of an attempt by any European nation to colonize or sub- 
jugate Texas, he would regard it as the duty of the government of the 
United States to oppose, by force of arms, if necessary, the accomplish- 
ment of such design. 

If, as was probable, there should, in the progress of events, be a 
separation of the British North American colonies from the parent 
country, it was his opinion that the happiness of all parties would be 
best promoted by their being erected into a separate and independent 
republic. The three republics, Canada, Texas, and the United States, 
would be natural allies, ready by cooperation, to repel any foreign attack 
upon either. 

In conclusion, he thus sums up his opinions : He " considers the 
annexation of Texas, at this time, without the assent of Mexico, as a 
measure compromising the national character, involving us certainly in 
war with Mexico, probably with other foreign powers, dangerous to the 
integrity of the union, inexpedient to the present financial condition of the 
country, and not called for by any general expression of public opinion." 

This letter was satisfactory to the party generally, although it did 
not fully express the views of the ultra slaveholding whigs, or of the 
mass of the whig party in the northern states. To the former it was 
not sufficiently favorable to slavery, while to the latter, the prospective 
increase of the slave power in the general government was the grand 



THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OP 1844. 803 

objection to the proposed measure. Still, the fact of Mr. Clay's opposi- 
tion to it, for other, though less weighty reasons, rendered him generally 
acceptable to the party in these states. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Van Buren had long been the leading demo- 
cratic candidate, and his nomination had been considered as almost cer- 
tain, his availability began to be questioned by many prominent members 
of the democratic party. In the southern states, especially, where the 
deepest solicitude was felt for the annexation of Texas, the apprehension 
prevailed, that Mr. Van Buren, being a northern man, might not 
•encourage this favorite scheme of the south As the opinions of a can- 
didate on this question were deemed all important in that section of the 
union, Mr. William H. Hammet, member of congress from Mississippi, 
and recently appointed a delegate to the approaching national convention, 
on the 27th of March, addressed Mr. Van Buren, requesting of him a 
public expression of his " opinions as to the constitutionality and expe- 
diency of immediately annexing Texas to the United States, or as soon 
as the consent of Texas might be had to such annexation." 

Mr. Van Buren's answer is dated April 20, three days later than the 
letter of Mr. Clay on the same subject, but before its publication. The 
letter is one of very great length, in which the several points involved in 
this important question are elaborately discussed. It also contains 
many interesting historical facts, directly and indirectly relating to the 
subject. 

As Mr. Clay had done under Mr. Adams, so Mr. Van Buren, in 1829, 
while secretary of state, by direction of Gen. Jackson, instructed our 
minister at Mexico to open a negotiation with the Mexican government 
for the purchase of the greater part of the then province of Texas. " In 
taking this step," he says, " the administration of president Jackson 
renewed (but as was supposed, under more favorable circumstances) an 
attempt to accomplish the same object which had been made by its 
immediate predecessor. Instructions, similar in their general object, 
had, in the second year of the latter administration, been sent from the 
department of state to the same American minister at Mexico. I am 
not aware that there were any material differences between them, other 
than those of 1 827 proposed an acquisition of territory as far west as the 
Rio del Norte — being, I believe, the extreme western boundary of Texas — 
whilst the cession asked for by president Jackson extended only west 
as far as the desert or grand prairie, which lies east of the river 
Nueces ; and that for the frontier the payment of one million of dollars 
was authorized, whilst, by the administration of president Jackson, the 
American minister was permitted to go as high as four, and, if indis- 
pensable, five millions. Both authorized agreements for smaller portions 



804 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of territory ; and the payments were modified accordingly. In respect 
to the proposed stipulations for the ultimate incorporation of the inhabi- 
tants into the union, both instructions were identical. 

" In August, 1837, a proposition was received at the department of 
state, from the Tesian minister at Washington, proposing a negotiation 
for the annexation of Texas to the United States. This was the first 
time the question of annezing a foreign independent state had ever been 
presented to this government. In deciding upon the disposition that 
ought to be made of it, I did not find it necessary to consider the ques- 
tion of constitutional power, nor the manner in which the object should ' 
be accomplished, if deemed expedient and proper. Both these points 
were, therefore, in t^^rms, passed over, in the reply of the secretary of 
state to the Texian minister, as subjects the consideration of which had 
not been entered upon by the executive." 

He then proceeds to the discussion of the constitutional power. It 
may be proper here to premise, that as, by the constitution, the power 
to admit new states into the union is given to congress, Texas, it was 
inferred, could not be annexed, as a state, by the treaty-making power ; 
and hence, if annexed by treaty, it could be done constitutionally only, 
if at all, by acquiring it as a territory. But as the constitution 
did not in terms confer upon either branch of the government the power 
to purchase or otherwise acquire foreign territory, the annexation of 
Texas, even as territory, was extensively questioned. As has been else- 
where stated, Mr. Jefferson and numerous other eminent statesmen, 
admitted the purchase of Louisiana to be unauthorized by the constitu- 
tion, and justified it only on the ground of a necessity which, it was con- 
tended, did not in the present case exist. Congress, alone, had express 
power to purchase territory ; only, however, so far as the objects were 
specified, viz., " for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, 
and other needful buildings." Thus, it is perceived, there was no way 
of acquiring foreign territory which did not present constitutional objec- 
tions to some minds. The acquisition by treaty, palpable as its uncon- 
stitutionality has been deemed, had the sanction of precedent, and the 
acquiescence of the people, and was therefore liable to the least objection. 
This is the ground assumed by Mr. Van Buren. 

" If," he says, " there be nothing in the situation or condition of the 
territory of Texas, which would render its admission hereafter into the 
union as a new state improper, I cannot perceive any objection, on con- 
stitutional grounds, to its annexation as a territory. In speaking of the 
right to admit new states, I must, of course, be understood, as referring 
to the power of congress. The executive and senate may, as I have 
already observed, by the exercise of the treaty-making power, acquire 



THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 805 

territory ; but new states can only be admitted by congress." To sustain 
these propositions, he examines at length the constitution, the proceed- 
ings of the convention of framers, and the articles of confederation. 

In answering the inquiry as to the expediency of annexation, he refers 
to a letter from secretary Forsyth to Gen. Hunt, the Texian minister, 
while he, Mr. Van Buren, was president. This letter, which stated his 
views and those of his cabinet, speaks thus : " So long as Texas shall 
remain at war, while the United States are at peace with her adversary, 
the opposition of the Texian minister plenipotentiary necessarily involves 
the question of war with that adversary. The United States are bound 
to Mexico by a treaty of amity and commerce, which will be scrupu- 
lously observed on their part so long as it can be reasonably hoped 
that Mexico will perform her duties, and respect our rights under it. 
The United States might justly be suspected of a disregard of the 
friendly purposes of the compact, if the overture of Grencral Hunt were 
to be even reserved for future consideration, as this would imply a dis- 
position on our part to espouse the quarrel of Texas with Mexico — a 
disposition wholly at variance with the spirit A the treaty, with the 
uniform policy and the obvious welfare of the United States. 

" The inducements mentioned by General Hunt for the United States 
to annex Texas to their territory, are duly appreciated ; but, powerful 
and weighty as certainly they are, they are light when opposed in the 
scale of reason to treaty obligations, and respect for that integrity of 
character by which the United States have sought to distinguish them- 
selves since the establishment of their right to claim a place in the great 
family of nations." 

" The intimation in Gen. Hunt's letter that Texas might be induced 
to extend commercial advantages to other nations to the prejudice of 
the United States, was thus noticed : 

" ' It is presumed, however, that the motives by which Texas has been 
governed in making this overture, will have equal force in impellino- her 
to preserve, as an independent power, the most liberal commercial relations 
with the United States. Such a disposition will be cheerfully met, in a 
corresponding spirit, by this government. If the answer which the un- 
dersigned has been directed to give to the proposition of General Hunt 
should unfortunately work such a change in the sentiments of that gov- 
ernment as to induce an attempt to extend commercial relations else- 
where, upon terms prejudicial to the United States, this government will 
be consoled by the rectitude of its intentions, and a certainty that, 
although the hazard of transient losses may be incurred by a rigid ad- 
herence to juBt principles, no lasting prosperity can be secured when 
they are disregarded.' " 



806 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

These views, said Mr. Van Buren, though not satisfactory to Gen. 
Hunt, received the almost unanimous approval of the people of the 
United States. Even a resolution ofiFered in the senate declaring annex- 
ation, " whenever it could be eiFected consistently with the public faith 
and treaty stipulations of the United States, desirable," was ordered to 
lie upon the table ; and a similar disposition was made in the house of 
the papers upon the subject. Having taken this position when president, 
it was now his duty to consider whether the question had so far changed 
as to justify him now in advising a different policy. Were Texas and 
Mexico still at war, or were they not ? Regarding a true answer to this 
question indispensable to a correct decision as to the expediency of an- 
nexation, we give here a copious extract from the letter : 

" Mexico has been incessant in her avowal, as well to our government 
as to others, of the continuance of the war, and of her determination to 
prosecute it. How does Texas regard her position in respect to the war 
with Mexico ? Three years subsequent to our recognition of her inde- 
pendence, we find her entering into a stipulation with a foreign power to 
accept of her mediation to bring about a cessation of hostilities between 
her and Mexico, engaging to assume a million sterling of the debt due 
from Mexico to the subjects of that power, if she, through her influence, 
obtained from Mexico an unlimited truce in respect to the war then 
raging between her and Texas within one month, and a treaty of peace 
in six. As late as last June, we see a proclamation of the president of 
Texas, declaring a suspension of hostilities between the two powers 
during the pendency of negotiations to be entered upon between them, 
issued on the supposition that a similar proclamation would be issued by 
Mexico ; and actual hostilities are now only suspended by an armistice 
to be continued for a specified and short period, for the sake of negotia- 
tion. Nor are our own views upon the point less explicit. In the pub- 
lished letter of the late secretary of state, to the Mexican minister at 
Washington, written in December last, he says : ' Nearly eight years 
have elapsed since Texas declared her independence. During all that 
time Mexico has asserted her right of jurisdiction and dominion over 
that country, and has endeavored to enforce it by arms.' In the presi- 
dent's message to congress, it is stated that ' the war which has existed 
for so long a time betweeu Mexico and Texas, has, since the battle of 
San Jacinto, consisted for the most part of predatory incursions, which, 
while they have been attended with much of suffering to individuals, and 
kept the borders of the two countries in a state of constant alarm, have 
failed to approach to any definite result.^ Aul after commenting 
with much truth upon the insufficiency of the armaments wliich Mexico 
has fitted out for the subjection of Texas — on the length of time which 



THE PRES1DE^^IAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 80/ 

has elapsed since the latter declared her independence- —on the perse- 
verance, notwithstanding, in plans of reconquest by Mexico — on her 
refusal to acknowledge the independence of Texas, and on the evils of 
border warfare, the message adds : ' The United States have an imme- 
ate interest in seeing an end put to the state of hostilities between Mexico 
and Texas.' 

" But what, my dear sir, is the true and undisguised character of the 
remedy for those evils, which would be applied by the * immediate an- 
nexation of Texas to the United States ?' Is it more or less than say- 
ing to Mexico, ' We feel ourselves aggrieved by the continuance of this 
war between you and Texas ; we have an interest in seeing it terminated ; 
we will accomplish that object by taking the disputed territory to our- 
selves ; we will make Texas a part of the United States, so that those 
plans of reconquest which we know you are maturing, to be successful, 
must be made so against the power that we can bring into the contest ; 
if the war is to be continued as we understand to be your design, the 
United States are henceforth to be regarded as one of the belligerents?' " 

The sentiments expressed in the following extracts are worthy of all 
observation: "We must look to this matter as it really stands. We 
shall act under the eye of an intelligent, observing world ; and the affair 
cannot be made to wear a different aspect from what it deserves if even 
we had the disposition (which we have not) to throw over it disguises of 
any kind. We should consider whether there is any way in which the 
peace of the country can be preserved, should an immediate annexation 
take place, save one — and that is, according to present appearances, the 
improbable event that Mexico will be deterred from the farthest prosecu- 
tion of the war by the apprehension of our power. * * « 
The question then recurs, if, as sensible men, we cannot avoid the con- 
clusion that the immediate annexation of Texas would, in all human pro- 
bability, draw after it a war with Mexico, can it be expedient to attempt 
it ? Of the consequences of such a war, the character it might be made 
to assume, the entanglements with other nations which the position of a 
belligerent almost unavoidably draws after it, and the undoubted injuries 
which might be inflicted upon each — notwithstanding the great disparity 
of their respective forces, I will not say a word. God forbid that an 
American citizen should ever count the cost of any appeal to what is appro- 
priately denominated the last resort of nations, whenever that resort be- 
comes necessary either for the safety or to vindicate the honor of his 
country. There is, I trust, not one so base as not to regard himself and 
all he has to be forever and at all times subject to such a requisition. But 
would a war with Mexico, brought on under such circumstances, be a 
contest of tliat character ? Could we hope to stand justified in the eyes 



80fe iHE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of mankind for entering into it ; more especially if its commencement is 
to be preceded by the appropriation to our own uses of the territory, 
the sovereignty of which is in dispute between two nations, one of which 
we are to join in the struggle ? This, sir, is a matter of the gravest 
import, one in respect to which no American statesman or citizen can 
possibly be indifferent." 

An important suggestion of Mr. Van Buren was, that we were liable 
to be misled on this subject by the fact, that many, if not most of the 
persons in Texas to be affected by the decision of this question were 
once our own fellow-citizens ; and still had their relatives and friends 
amongst us, by a respect for whose feelings we were naturally influenced. 
Yet, he says : " Nothing is either more true or more extensively known, 
than that Texas was wrested from Mexico, and her independence estab- 
lished through the instrumentality of citizens of the United States." 
He says, however, that it was done against the efforts of our government 
to prevent our citizens from engaging in the enterprise. And he defends 
the government against the imputation of insincerity in these efforts, 
and of a desire to obtain in another way a portion of the territory of 
Mexico which we had failed to obtain by fair purchase or by negotiation. 
He said he knew from having been consulted by Gen. Jackson on the 
subject while the latter was president, that he was sincerely desirous to 
prevent the slightest violation of the laws. 

Mr. Van Buren replies to the argument that the acquisition of Texas 
in the manner proposed, was liable to no greater objection now, than it 
was in 1827 and 1829, when it was attempted by two successive adminis- 
trations (Adams' and Jackson's ;) and also to the argument that, if Texas 
is not acquired now, the opportunity may be lost forever. The substance 
of the replies is, that, admitting what is here assumed to be true, it can 
not justify the committing of a wrong to secure the desired object. But 
in relation to the mode of acquisition, he did not admit the analogy 
which was claimed to exist between the present case and those of the two 
preceding administrations. 

It was not long after this letter appeared, before it was apparent that 
Mr. Van Buren was to be abandoned. Movements were soon made in 
many places to prevent his nomination. Annexation was to southern 
democrats an object for which even Mr. Van Buren was not deemed too 
great a sacrifice. Meetings were held for the purpose of revoking the 
instructions which had been given to delegates to support Mr. Van 
Buren ; and resolutions were passed recommending to them to cast their 
votes for men known and pledged to be in favor of annexation. In New 
York and other northern states, the " democracy" protested against 
these southern ni ovements to defeat Mr. Van Buren. Protests, however, 



THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 809 

as the result soon proved, were unavailing ; and Mr. Van Bui'en himself 
was compelled, for the harmony of the party, so far to defer to southern 
sentiment, as to authorize the withdrawal of his name if it should be 
found necessary. 

The Whig national convention assembled at Baltimore on the 1st of 
May. Among the delegates were an unusual number of the most able 
and eminent men from all the states. Hon. Ambrose Spencer, of New 
York, was chosen president of the convention. No ballot for president 
was taken. A resolution was oflfered by Benjamin Watkins Leigh, of 
Virginia, declaring Henry Clay, of Kentucky, to be unanimously nomi- 
nated as the whig candidate for the presidency, and was carried by ac- 
clamation. Theodore Frelinghuysen, was chosen, on the third ballot, as 
a candidate for vice-president. 

The democratic convention, which assembled on the 27th, manifested 
a considerable want of unanimity. Mr. Van Buren, however, received 
a clear majority on the first ballot. The vote was, for Mr. Van Buren, 
146; for Lewis Cass, 83; Richard M. Johnson, 24; for Mr. Calhoun, 
6 ; and 7 for other persons. But a rule of the convention required a 
majority of two-thirds to nominate. On the eighth ballot, Mr. Van 
Buren received 104; Gen. Cass, 114; James K. Polk, 44. The delega- 
tions from New York and Virginia then retired separately for consulta- 
tion. On their return, Mr. Roane, of Virginia, stated that the delegates 
from that state would vote for Mr. Polk. Mr. Butler, of New York, 
made the same announcement in behalf of the delegates from his state, 
with the exception of one, who would vote blank; and, at the same time, 
having authority for so doing, withdrew the name of Mr. Van Buren. 
On the ninth ballot, the vote was unanimous for Mr. Polk. Silas 
Wright, of New York, senator in congress, was nominated for vice-presi- 
dent. Mr. Wright, then at Washington, having declined the nomina- 
tion, G-eorge M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, was the next day nominated. 

The nomination of Mr. Polk, took the country by surprise : to the 
friends of Mr. Van Buren, it was a painful disappointment. They ac- 
quiesced, however, in the nomination ; and Mr. Polk probably received 
a more unanimous support from his party, than was given to his oppo- 
nent, there being in the northern states a considerable number of whigs 
who regarded Mr. Clay's connection with slavery as an insuperable ob- 
jection to their giving him their votes, and who consequently voted for 
Mr. Birney, the candidate of the abolition party. The letter of Mr. 
Van Buren on the annexation question, had doubtless contributed largely 
to defeat his nomination. Even with a unanimous nomination, his elec- 
tion was considered doubtful; and without the cordial support of the 
southern portion of the party, it was deemed almost hopeless. Mr. Polk 



810 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

being known to be true to southern interests, would be likely to com- 
mand even more than a party vote, (Mr. Clay being charged by his oppo- 
nents in that section of the union with northern sympathies,) while at 
the north he was certain of receiving at least a full party vote, as north- 
ern democrats had hitherto, with great unanimity refused to make issue 
npon the question of slavery. 

The whigs were in this respect less fortunate. Suspected by the more 
ultra portions of the whigs on both sides of the slavery question, Mr. 
Clay was several times addressed for a more definite expression of his 
views on the subject of annexation. 

Being placed " between two fires," he found it not an easy matter to 
answer letters of inquiry from either section, without affecting his stand- 
ing in the other. In his answer to one of these letters from the south, 
he wrote : " I consider the union a great political partnership ; and that 
npw members ought not to be admitted into the concern at the imminent 
hazard of its dissolution. Personally I could have no objection to the 
annexation of Texas ; but I certainly would be unwilling to see the ex- 
isting union dissolved or seriously jeoparded for the sake of acquiring 
Texas. If any one desires to know the leading and paramount object of 
my public life, the preservation of the union will furnish him the key." 
The expression that he had " personally no objection to annexation" 
was pertinaciously and vigorously pressed by the abolitionists as evidence 
that his influence, if he should be elected, would be given to that mea- 
sure. 

But there were other prominent party questions at issue in the presi- 
dential canvass of this year. A vigorous effort had been made at the 
preceding session of congress to modify the tariff. A bill had been re- 
ported in the house, which proposed to substitute ad valorem for specific 
duties on almost all articles, and to reduce them to rates little above 
those existing at the time of the passage of the act of 1842. The bill 
had been laid upon the table by a vote of 105 to 99. A general and 
powerful assault was made upon the tariff during the canvass. It was a 
regular topic of discussion in all the great political meetings during the 
campaign. A slight gain only of anti-tariff members at this election was 
necessary to effect the object contemplated by the above bill. This re- 
sult was secured, a majority of low tariff members having been returned 
to the next congress. 

A new question had been introduced by the democratic national con- 
vention, which had, as was supposed, considerable influence in determin- 
ing the result of the election of 1844. The conflicting claims of the 
United States and Great Britain to a part of the Oregon country, have 
been mentioned. It will be recollected that, by an arrangement then 



THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 81 i 

existiDg, the territory in dispute, wtich extended north to 54 degieea and 
40 minutes north latitude, was to be occupied jointly by the parties ; 
and that this joint occupancy might be terminated by either party giving 
to the other twelve months' notice of an intention to discontinue the 
same. A resolution was adopted by the democratic convention, declaring 
" that our title to the whole of Oregon is clear and unquestionable ; 
that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other 
power ; and the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas, 
at the earliest practicable period, are great American measures, which 
the convention recommends to the cordial support of the democracy of 
the union." 

Mr. Van Buren's letter on annexation had been approved by the mass 
of the northern democracy. Hence the nomination of Mr. Polk was to 
them at first more than a mere matter of surprise. A candidate was 
presented to them whose views upon the most important question to be 
decided at the ensuing election were directly opposed to their own, and 
whom they could not support without subjecting themselves to the 
charge of palpable inconsistency. And for a time there were indications 
of extensive " bolting." The strength of party attachment, however, 
soon overcame all opposition to the nomination. Many who had depre- 
cated annexation, became the most ardent and distinguished advocates 
of this "great American measure." But although Mr. Polk was sup- 
ported by the democratic party at the north with great unanimity, there 
were those who gave their support with a protest against the adoption 
of the annexation project as a party measure. The organ of this class 
of democrats was the New York Evening Post, then, as now, a moderate 
and sincere opponent of slavery compromise and extension, whose editor, 
with six other gentlemen, issued the following private circular, which 
they sent to some of their friends in different parts of the state : 

[confidential.] 

" 9iR : You will doubtless agree with us, that the late Baltimore 
convention place the democratic party at the north in a position of great 
di£Bculty. We are constantly reminded that it rejected Mr. Van Buren 
and nominated Mr, Polk, for reasons connected with the immediate 
annexation of Texas — reasons which had no relation to the principles 
of the party. Nor was that all. The convention went beyond the 
authority delegated to its members, and adopted a resolution on the 
subject of Texas, (a subject not before the country when they were 
elected; upon which, therefore, they were not instructed,) which seeks 
to interpolate into the party code a new doctrine, hitherto unknown 
among us, at war with some of our established principles, and abhorrent 



812 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

to the opinions and feelings of a great majority of northern frecmea 
In this position, what was the party at the north to do ? Was it to 
reject the nominations and abandon the contest, or should it support the 
nominations, rejecting the untenable doctrine interpolated at the con- 
vention, and taking care that their support should be accompanied with 
such an expression of their opinion as to prevent its being misinter- 
preted ? The latter alternative has been preferred ; and, we think, 
wisely ; for we conceive that a proper expression of their opinions will 
save their votes from misconstruction, and that proper efforts will 
secure the nomination of such members of congress as will reject the 
unwarrantable scheme now pressed upon the country. 

" With these views, assuming that you feci on this subject as we do 
we have been desired to address you, and to invite the cooperation of 
yourself and other friends throughout the state : 

"1st. In the publication of a joint letter, declaring our purpose to 
support the nominations, rejecting the resolutions respecting Texas. 

" 2d. In promoting and supporting at the next election the nomina- 
tion for congress of such persons as concur in these opinions. 

" If your views in this matter coincide with ours, please write to some 
one of us, and a draft of the proposed letter will be forwarded for exami- 
nation." 

The paper was signed by George P. Barker, William C. Bryant, J. 
W. Edmonds, David Dudley Field, Theodore Sedgwick, Thomas W. 
Tucker, and Isaac Townsend. 

This circular by some means got out of its destined track, and soon 
found its way into the newspapers. It subjected its authors to the most 
vehement denunciation. The act was pronounced by the New York 
Plebeian, the organ of the conservative democracy, " treason under the 
mask of philanthropy — ^federalism under the guise of democracy — false- 
hood under the covering of truth." The signers of the circular were " a 
clique of self-righteous politicians," engaged in a " contemptible and 
impotent attempt to restrict the progress of republican institutions." 
The circular meant " treason — foul, abolition treason." " It would 
throw out the idea, that there was a diversity of sentiment among the 
democratic masses upon this vital movement of annexing Texas. It 
would deceive the country into the belief, that the democracy of the 
empire state had laid aside its patriotism, its love of country, its old 
fashioned republicanism, and, through these ' seven wise men,' stood 
i?eady to violate the compromise of the constitution, raise the black flag 
of political abolition, and stand a barrier resisting the onward march 
of the republic. It would, moreover, by ' confidential,' secret, wily, 
insidious organization, attempt to control our congressional nomina« 
lions." 



THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 810 

The editor of the Post said in reply, that the letter contained only the 
expression of opinions frequently repeated in that paper, and which 
would be repeated thereafter. He claimed the right to correspond pri- 
vately on political subjects when he chose, and if his letters were pil- 
fered and published, he merely asked the community to mark those who 
were concerned in the act as spies and thieves. He persisted in declar- 
ing the intention not to recognize the annexation of Texas as an issue 
between the two great political parties. 

The presidential campaign of 1844 was highly animated — the more so 
from the new questions brought into the canvass. Never were the 
claims of candidates more closely examined or more vigorously con- 
tested. It was evident, soon after the nominations were made, that 
which party soever should be defeated, neither would be chargeable 
with inactivity. Probably in no other similar contest has a greater 
array of talent been marshaled into the field of political discussion. 
Some of the most eminent citizens, such as had held the highest official 
stations, enlisted during the campaign as regular itinerants, performing 
a circuit of half the union. Without undertaking to decide with which 
party was the balance of merit, it will hardly be disputed that the demo- 
crats had the advantage in the force or efficiency of argument in the 
popular assembles. The appeals in behalf of the " lone star" seeking a 
union with the galaxy of American confederated states, could not fail 
to touch the republican sympathies of the nation ; while the pledge of 
Mr. Polk to insist on " the whole of Oregon, or none" — " with or with- 
out war," was no less effective with many who remembered the former 
wrongs cf our old enemy. 

Whigs, on the other hand, held up to public view the evils of slavery, 
and made impassioned appeals in behalf of suffering humanity ; at the 
same time charging upon their opponents at the north an alliance with 
the propagandists of slavery in an attempt to increase its power in the 
government, by extending the slave territory of the. union. But these 
arguments were lost upon men belonging to a party the first article of 
whose creed enjoined adherence to "regular nominations;" who were 
taught to eschew the question of slavery as a party question ; and who 
held to the popular notion that all agitation of the subject only serves 
to aggravate the evil. 

Not the least source of embarrassment to the whigs was the opposition 
of the abolition party. This party, though confessedly without the least 
hope of electing their candidates, were not less assiduous in their elec- 
tioneering efforts than either of the other parties. Expecting their 
gains from the whigs, they came into direct collision with that party. 
Their expostulations with those whom they deemed " conscience whigs," 



814 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

were incessant, and not altogether without effect. Many who were 
pledged against slavery, and who thought they were carrying out their 
principles by voting for the whig candidate, who, though a slaveholder, 
was opposed to a measure which must necessarily increase the political 
power of slavery, were dissuaded from their purpose. The inconsistency 
of voting for a slaveholder under any circumstances ; " do right regard- 
less of consequences ;" — these and other like arguments were plied with 
great assiduity. Besides, Mr. Clay having written that "personally 
he had no objection to the annexation of Texas," it was argued that 
his alleged objections would readily yield to his personal feelings ; and 
therefore he could be no more safely trusted than Mr. Polk. The abo- 
litionists being unanimously opposed to annexation, the whigs had cal- 
culated on a large support from that party ; whereas, the result showed 
a large increase of the abolition vote. In the state of New York, this 
vote was more than double its amount in 1842, the number of votes 
gained being more than sufficient, if they had been given for Mr. Clay, 
to have secured him the electoral vote of that state, and with it his 
election. The indignation of the whigs excited by the course of the 
abolitionists, found vent in the severest censures. This unexpected 
opposition, to which they ascribed the defeat of their favorite, oft-tried 
candidate, for whose election they were deeply anxious, and who, as 
they supposed, ought to have been deemed unexceptionable, under 
existing circumstances, to all opponents of slavery, was an offense which 
has not to this day been entirely forgotten or forgiven. 

Of the electoral votes, Messrs. Polk and Dallas received 170 ; Messrs 
Clay and Frelinghuysen, 105. 



CHAPTEK LXVI. 

TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF OREGON. ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 

FLORIDA AND IOWA ADMITTED. UNIFORM TIME OF CHOOSING PRESI- 
DENTIAL ELECTORS. REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 

The 2d session of the 28th congress commenced the 2d of Decem- 
ber, 1844, and terminated with Mr. Tyler's presidential term, on the 3d 
of March, 1845. As waa to be expected, the questions of the annexa- 
tion of Texas, and of the occupation of the territory of Oregon, which 
had held s: prominent a position among the issues at the late election, 



TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF OREGON. 815 

were introduced at an early day of the session. The president, in his 
annual message, recommended, with a view to protect and facilitate emi- 
gration to that territory, the establishment of military posts at suitable 
points upon the line of travel. Laws also should be made to protect the 
person and property of emigrants after their arrival. These measures 
were deemed necessary whatever might be the result of the pending 
negotiation. 

A bill was introduced in the house on the 16th of December, by Mr. 
Duncan, of Ohio, to establish a territorial government in Oregon. The 
bill was subsequently read and referred ; and on the 27th it was taken 
up for discussion. It embraced under the proposed government the 
whole territory west of the summit of the Rocky Mountains and between 
latitude 42 degrees and 54 degreq^ 40 minutes. In the course of the 
debate, the question of title was fully discussed ; and our claim to the 
whole territory was advocated by democratic members. Some, however, 
regarded the bill as repugnant to that provision of our treaty with Grreat 
Britain which allowed a joint occupancy until after either party should 
have given the other twelve months' notice of a purpose to discontinue it. 

The bill was opposed also as indiscreet and improper, as negotiations 
were in progress, and probably near a close. The proposed measure 
might break up the negotiation, and lead to war. It was unnecessary 
and premature. It should be deferred until the negotiation was ended. 
An amendment was proposed by Preston King, of New York, providing 
for giving the notice to the British government. 

Mr. Adams was in favor of passing a joint resolution, directing the 
president to give notice to Great Britain that the joint occupancy must 
end in twelve months. This he thought the most likely mode of bring- 
ing the pending negotiation to a point. After having given the notice 
he should not object to passing the present bill with some modifications ; 
and he hoped that in this manner we might obtain possession, if not of 
the whole that we claimed, at least of a very large part of it, without 
war. But to pass the bill in its present form, without notice, must lead 
to war, if it was not itself a war measure. 

Mr. A. V. Brown, of Tennessee, who, aa chairman of the committee 
on territories, had reported the bill, contended that the bill should be 
passed first, and notice given afterward. 

Mr. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, moved an amendment, prohibiting 
slavery, which was adopted, 85 to 56. 

An amendment was also made, providing that the act should not be so 
construed as to interfere with the rights which British subjects might have 
under the existing treaty, until after the twelve months' notice should 
have been given. The bill passed the house, February 3, 1845, 140 t.. 



d^ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN- 

59, and was sent to the senate for concurrence. A motion to take up 
the bill was made in that body on the 3d of March, the last day of the 
session, but it did not prevail. So the bill was lost. 

Mr. Tyler had in previous messages recommended the taking posses- 
sion of the territory, and at the session of 1842-3, a bill for that purpose 
had passed the senate, 25 to 21 ; but the house refusing to concur, the 
bill was lost. At the next session, (1843-44,) resolutions were intro- 
duced into both houses, proposing to give notice to Great Britain of the 
intended termination of the joint occupancy after twelve months ; but the 
resolutions were not adopted. A material objection to their passage was 
the apprehension that it might prejudice the negotiation then pending. 

But the great measure of this session (1844-45,) was annexation. 
The negotiation of the treaty with Texas, had stirred up afresh the bel- 
ligerent spirit of Mexico, and had induced her to threaten Texas with a 
renewal of the war. The president, in his message, expresses the opinion, 
that the invasion of Texas would not be looked upon with indifference by 
our citizens of the adjoining states. Mexico, he said, had no just ground 
of displeasure. Texas was an independent power, and free to treat. No 
boundary had been defined by the treaty ; this the executive had pro- 
posed to do upon terms which all the world would have pronounced 
reasonable. He believed, if the treaty had been ratified, it would have 
been followed by a prompt and satisfactory settlement of the difficulty 
with Mexico. An objection urged against the treaty was, that it had 
not been submitted to the ordeal of public opinion. Although he con- 
sidered this objection untenable, he had submitted the subject to con- 
gress, whose action would be the best expression of popular sentiment. 
Congress having taken no definite action upon the subject, the question 
had referred itself directly to the states and the people ; and their will 
had been expressed at the recent election, in favor of the immediate 
annexation of Texas. 

On the 10th of December, Mr. M'Duffie introduced into the senate reso- 
lutions declaring the rejected treaty, to be " the fundamental law of union 
between the United States and Texas so soon as the supreme authorities 
of the said republic of Texas shall agree to the same." Mr. Benton at 
the same time gave notice of a bill " to provide for the annexation of 
Texas to the United States." This bill authorized and advised the pre- 
sident to open negotiations with Mexico and Texas for the adjustment 
of boundaries and the annexation of the latter to the United States, on 
the same bases as those stated in the bill introduced by him at the pre- 
ceding session of congress. [See page 794.] On the 12th, in the house, 
Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, reported a joint resolution for 
annexation, similar to that of Mr. M'Duffie, of the senate. Mr. Win- 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 817 

throp, of Massachusetts, one of the minority of the committee, declared 
their dissent from the doctrines of the accompanying report *, believing 
the resolution to be unconstitutional in form and in substance ; incon- 
sistent with the law of nations and the good faith of our own country ; 
as likely to involve ub in an unjust and dishonorable war ; and eminently 
objectionable from its relation to the subject of slavery. 

Resolutions of annexation were offered by several members of both 
houses. Among these was a joint resolution submitted to the senate by 
Mr. Foster, of Tennessee : " That congress doth consent' that the terri- 
tory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the republic 
of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called the ' state of 
Texas,' with a republican forfla of government, to be adopted by the 
people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the 
consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be 
admitted as one of the states of this union." The resolution was followed 
by these conditions and guaranties : 

1. The adjustment of questions of boundary arising with other govern- 
ments, to be laid before congress for its final action. 

2. All mines, salt springs, public edifices, navy, fortifications, and 
other public property, to be ceded to the United States ; but all public 
funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, and all vacant and unappro- 
priated lands to be retained by the state, and applied to the payment of 
her debts, for which the general government was in no event to become 
liable. 

3. By consent of the state, four new states formed out of the territory 
thereof, might hereafter be admitted ; those formed out of territory 
south of the Missouri compromise line, to be admitted with or without 
slavery, as the people of each might desire. 

It will be seen that this resolution does not prescribe any form or 
mode of annexation. In regard to this, Mr. Foster was not determined. 
He was in favor of annexation ; and if any mode could be devised which 
should appear to him to be in conformity to the constitution, he would 
unite in effecting the measure on the principles contained in his reso- 
lution. 

In the house, on the 25th of January, the debate in committee of the 
whole having terminated at two o'clock, the committee proceeded to vote 
upon the resolution reported by Mr. Ingersoll, from the committee on 
foreign affairs, and on the various proposed amendments. After dis- 
posing of a number of these amendments, and amendments to amend the 
same, Mr. Milton Brown, of Tennessee, moved to amend a pending 
amendment, by substituting a resolution offered by himself on the 13th, 
similar to that of Mr. Foster of the senate ; and which, on motion of 

52 



818 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, was amended by adding, that, " in such state 
or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of the said Mis- 
scuri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for 
crime, shall be prohibited." Mr. Brown, having accepted this amend- 
ment, his proposition, as modified, was adopted, 109 to 99. The ques- 
tion was then taken on Mr. Weller's amendment, as amended by the 
substitution of that of Mr. Brown, and decided in th*e affirmative, 110 
to 93. 

The committee of the whole then rose, and reported to the house the 
resolution of the committee on foreign aifairs, all after the enacting 
clause having been struck out, and Mr. Brown's resolution inserted. 
The speaker having announced the report of the committee of the whole, 
a number of members immediately sprung to the floor, and addressed 
" Mr. Speaker." Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, who was recognized 
by the chair, observed that it was time to put an end to this exciting 
(pestion, and moved the previous question, which was seconded, 107 to 
97, and the main question ordered to be put, 113 to 106 : and the ques- 
tion, shall the house concur with the committee of the whole in adopting 
Mr. Brown's amendment, was taken, and decided in the afiirmative : 
ayes, 118; noes, 101. The resolution was then ordered to a third read- 
ing, 119 to 97, and finally passed, 120 to 98. 

From the classification of the vote as given by Niles, it appears that, 
of the 120 members who voted for the resolution of annexation, 112 
were democrats, 53 from free, and 59 from slave states, and 8 were 
whigs — all from slave states. Of the 98 who voted in the negative, 28 
were democrats, all from free states, and 70 were whigs, 52 from free, 
and 18 from slave states. Of the members from New York, 9 demo- 
crats voted for annexation, and 14 democrats and 10 whigs against it. 

Another classification was as follows : The number of democrats 
voting was 140 — 81 from free, and 59 from slave states. Of the 81, 
53 were for, and 28 against the annexation. The number of whigs 
voting was 78 — 52 from free, and 26 from slave states. Of the latter, 
8 were for, and eighteen against. The 59 democrats from' the slave 
states all voted for, and the 52 whigs from the free states all voted 
against annexation. 

In the senate, on the 4th of February, Mr. Archer, from the com- 
mittee on foreign relations, made a report on the joint resolution from 
the house to annex Texas. The report was accompanied by two resolu- 
tions — the first declaring that the resolution from the house be rejected ; 
the other, that the several bills, resolutions, petitions, and memorials on 
the subject in the senate, and referred to the committee, be laid on the 
table. Mr. Buchanan, one of the committee, dissented from the report, 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 819 

and declared himself to be in favor of the joint resolution from the 
house. The report did not discuss the propriety of annexing Texas, 
but was confined to the consideration of the imode proposed by the reso- 
lution. The committee concluded that if it could be effected at all con- 
stitutionally, it must be done by the treaty-making power. 

The next day Mr. Benton submitted a bill, providing, " That a state, 
to be formed out of the present republic of Texas, with suitable extent 
and boundaries, and with two representatives in congress until the next 
apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the union, by 
virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing states, as soon 
as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the 
remaining Texan territory to the United States, shall be agreed upon 
by the governments of Texas and the United States. 

" 2. That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be appropriated 
to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations to agree upon the 
terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted 
to the senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of congress, 
as the president may direct." 

A motion by Mr. Berrien to refer the bill to the committee on foreign 
relations was lost, 22 to 23. 

The great debate in the senate on annexation was commenced by Mr. 
Morehead, of Kentucky, the 13th of February, on a motion for the in- 
definite postponement of the joint resolution from the house. Those 
who took part in the debate in favor of the resolution of annexation, 
were Messrs. Buchanan, Woodbury, Henderson, Colquitt, Merrick, 
Ashley, M'Duffie, Allen, Walker, and Johnson, of Louisiana. Against 
annexation were Messrs. Morehead, Rives, Choate, Barrow, Simmons, 
Huntington, Dayton, Berrien, Miller, Bagby, Upham, Bates, Crittenden, 
Archer, Foster, and Woodbridge. 

Few debates have ever occurred in that body in which has been en- 
gaged a stronger array of talent, or which have been more highly char- 
acterized by legislative decorum, and the maintenance of senatorial 
dignity. It was one of the most important questions — perhaps the most 
important — ever decided by an American legislature — the incorporation 
of an independent foreign nation into our own, by a joint resolution — 
an act which was regarded universally as an exercise of an extremely 
doubtful power, and by many as unauthorized by the constitution upon any 
just principle of interpretation. Although the question had excited strong 
party feeling, the reported speeches evince entire freedom from acrimony 
and invective. The following account of the final proceedings of the 
senate upon the subject, was given at the time of their occurrence : 

" The most intense anxiety has pervaded the public mind for the last 



820 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

three weeks, and up to the time at which we go to press with this number, 
every moment adds fresh incident to the topic. For two weeks the 
United States senate chamber has been the focus. Upon that body the 
GREAT QUESTION devolvcd. Daily every avenue to the chamber was 
crammed by persons from all parts of the union. Foreign ministers, 
agents, and officers of all departments of the government were there — 
citizens and strangers — male and female. All seemed impressed with the 
gravity and importance of the question. The debate, for talent and elo- 
quence, as a whole, has seldom had its equal, certainly never has been 
surpassed in either house of congress. The uncertainty of the result — 
how the vote would be, up to the last moment, served to call out on each 
side, the utmost strength of intellect and ardor. There is every reason to 
believe that, during the struggle, the majority wavered first to one side 
and then to the other, more than once. Notwithstanding the receipt of 
letters from the leading partisans of Governor Wright, of New York, in 
favor of passing the resolutions, and the consequent calculation upon the 
vote of both senators from that state, and notwithstanding the defection 
of one of the Maryland senators, (Mr. Merrick,) from the whig ranks, 
which for some days seemed to have turned the scale in favor of the 
resolutions from the house, it was finally ascertained that a majority 
could not be obtained unless the friends of those resolutions would con- 
sent to a modification to suit Col. Benton's views. Mr. Bagby, one of 
the senators from Alabama, though in favor of annexation, refused his 
sanction to its accomplishment by mere legislative resolution. He 
insisted upon preserving the treaty-making prerogative of the senate." 

The resolution, as it came from the house, was, as has been stated, 
the same as that originally ofi"ered by Mr. Foster of the senate. As the 
vote was about to be taken, Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, proposed an 
amendment, by adding a resolution, " That, if the president of the 
United States, shall, in his judgment and discretion, deem it most advis- 
able, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolutions to the 
republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for 
admission, to negotiate with that republic ; then 

" Be it Resolved, That a state, to be formed out of the present repub- 
lic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two repre- 
sentatives in congress until the next apportionment of representation, 
shall be admitted into the union, by virtue of this act, on an equal foot- 
ing with the existing states, as soon as the terms and conditions of such 
admission, and the cession of the remaining Texan territory to the United 
States, shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United 
States. 

" 2. That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be appropriated 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. S^l 

to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations to agree upon the 
terms of said admission and cession, either hj treaty to be submitted to 
the senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of congress, 
as the president may direct." 

After taking a recess, the senate met at 6 o'clock to determine the 
question. Mr. Foster proposed an amendment to that of Mr. Walker, 
which was rejected. Mr. Archer then proposed an amendment, directing 
the president to open negotiations with Texas for its annexation to the 
union. This was lost by a tie vote, 26 to 26. Mr. "Walker's amendment 
then came up and was adopted : ayes, 27 ; noes, 25 ; every member being 
present. The resolution, as amended, was then ordered to a third read- 
ing by the same vote. The bill was then read a third time amidst a 
profound silence, and without the yeas and nays being called, and passed. 

It remained for the house to pass upon the amendment. It was taken 
up the next day, (February 28.) A number of amendments were offered 
by the opponents of annexation, with the view, as was supposed, to 
" stave off" the question, in order to prevent a decision at this session, 
two days only remaining. But the friends of the measure, being bent 
upon consummating it before adjourning on that day, voted down all 
proposed amendments, and succeeded in bringing the house to a final 
vote at 6 o'clock in the evening. The amendment of the senate was 
concurred in, 132 to 76. The resolutions were the next day, (March 1,) 
approved by the president ; and the triumph of annexation was complete. 
For, although the amendment of Mr. Walker submitted it to the option 
of the president to enter into negotiation for annexation, with the view 
of satisfying the scruples of senators against annexation by mere resolu- 
tion, it is not probable that either Mr. Tyler or Mr. Polk would jeopard 
the measure by negotiation. It was said, however, that Messrs. Benton 
and Bagby, without whose votes the resolutions would have been lost, 
both voted for them from their confidence that Mr. Polk, upon whom it 
was supposed the choice would devolve, would elect that mode. But 
Mr. Tyler, contrary to the general expectation, seized upon tbe last 
moment of his official existence, to exercise, himself, the power conferred 
by the resolutions. 

During the pendency of this important question, the opinions of many 
of our most eminent private citizens were made public. Mr. Webster 
January 23, 1844, in answer to a letter soliciting an expression of his 
opinion, referred to a speech of his in the city of New York, delivered 
about the time the proposition was made in 1837, during Mr. Van 
Buren's administration, in which speech he had stated objections to the 
measure, which remained unchanged. He objected to annexation on 
constitutional grounds. The constitution, he thought, did not conteic 



822 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

plate the admission of new states, except from territory then belonging 
to the United States. Louisiana had been since acquired from France, 
who had just obtained it from Spain. But the object of its acquisition 
was not mere extension of territory. Spain had held the mouths of the 
great rivers which rise in the western states, and flow into the gulf of 
Mexico. She had disputed our use of these outlets to the sea, and our 
commerce was in danger. That acquisition had necessarily brought ter- 
ritory with it. A similar necessity, though not so urgent, had led to 
the acquisition of Spain. But no such necessity required the annexation 
of Texas. The acceptance by the old congress, of the cession of terri- 
tory from individual states, by the terms of which new states might be 
created and admitted into the union, it seemed reasonable to confine this 
provision to states to be formed out of territory then belonging to the 
United States. From what could be learned from the circumstances, 
and from men's opinions and expectations at that day, no idea was enter- 
tained of bringing into the union states formed out of the territories of 
foreign powers. Indeed, much jealousy was felt toward the new govern- 
ment, from fears of its overbearing weight and strength, when proposed 
to be extended only over thirteen states. And he mentions it as an 
" unaccountable eccentricity and apparent inconsistency of opinion, that 
those who hold the cr>"^titution of the United States to be a compact 
between states^ should think, nevertheless, that the government created 
by that constitution is at liberty to introduce new states formed out of 
foreign territory, with or without the consent of those who are regarded 
as original parties." 

Mr. Webster objected to annexation, on the ground of its extending 
slavery. He said : " By whomsoever possessed, Texas is likely to be a 
slaveholding country ; and I frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do 
any thing which shall extend the slavery of the African race on this 
continent, or add slaveholding states to the union." The constitution, 
he said, found slavery among us, and gave it solemn guaranties. To the 
extent of these we were bound in honor and justice. }Jut when new 
states claimed admission, our rights and duties were both different. He 
said : " "When it is proposed to bring new members into this political 
partnership, the old members have a right to say on what terms such 
new partners are to come in, and what they are to bring along with them. 
In my opinion the people of the United States ought not to consent to 
bring a new, vastly extensive, and slaveholding country large enough 
for half a dozen or a dozen states into the union." 

General Jackson, from the numerous letters written by him on the 
subject, seems to' have felt a deep interest in the subject. A letter 
written by him as early as February, 1843, to Hon. A. V. Brown, 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 823 

though not published until a year or more afterward, strongly recom- 
mended the annexation of Texas. He urged as a reason its importance 
in a military point of view. In support of his proposition, he supposes 
the case of Great Britain forming an alliance with Texas, and designing 
war against the United States, and says : " Preparatory to such a 
movement, she sends her 20,000 or 30,000 men to Texas, organizes 
them on the Sabine, where her supplies and arms can bo concentrated 
before we have even notice of her intentions ; makes a lodgment on the 
Mississippi ; excites the negroes to insurrection ; the lower country falls, 
and with it New Orleans ; and a servile war rages through the whole 
s uth and west. In the meanwhile she is also moving an army along 
Our western frontier from Canada, which, in cooperation with the army 
from Texas, spreads ruin and havoc from the lakes to the gulf of 
Mexico." 

This letter made its appearance just before the publication of Mr. 
Van Buren's letter on annexation. Mr. Van Buren being known to 
be the general's favorite candidate for the presidency, but differing with 
him on this question, it became a matter of speculation whether Gen. 
Jackson would not turn his influence against Mr. Van Buren. The 
public curiosity was soon relieved, however, by the appearance of a 
letter from the " Hermitage," in which Gen. Jackson expresses his ad- 
herence both to annexation and to Mr. Van Buren. He accounts or 
apologizes for such a letter by saying, that it was " evidently prepared 
from a knowledge only of the circumstances bearing on the subject as 
they existed at the close of his administration, without a view of the 
disclosures since made, and which manifest a dangerous interference 
with the affairs of Texas by a foreign power. As to the form of annexa- 
tion, I do not think it material whether it be done by treaty, or upon 
the application of Texas, by an act or joint resolution of congress." 
Several other letters were written during the presidential campaign, in 
which he expressed the same apprehension as to the designs of Great 
Britain. The question was, " whether Texas and Oregon were to be 
considered as auxiliaries to American or to British interests." He alleged 
that Texas was independent ; and therefore, as regarded our treaty with 
Mexico, good faith was not involved in our decision. 

The opinion of Mr. Gallatin having been requested as to the consti- 
tutionality of Mr. M'Duffie's proposition for annexation, which was by a 
resolution, declaring the rejected treaty to be the fundamental law of 
union between the United States and Texas, he replies : " A doubt has 
been suggested, whether the general government has the right, by its 
sole authority, to annex a foreign state to the union. * * But 
it is unnecessary on this occasion to discuss that question. That now 



824 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

at issue is simply this : In whom is the power of making treaties vested 
by the constitution? The United States have recognized the inde- 
pendence of Texas ; and every compact between independent nations is 
a treaty." The constitution, he said, gave the treaty-making power to 
the president and senate. The senate had refused to give its consent 
to the treaty, and the resolution declared that it should nevertheless be 
made by congress a fundamental law binding on the United States. He 
says : " It substitutes for a written constitution, which distributes and de- 
fines powers, the supremacy, or, as it is called, the omnipotence of a 
British parliament." He considered it " an undisguised usurpation of 
power and violation of the constitution." 

The dispute respecting boundary also was regarded by many as an 
insuperable objection to annexation. This objection, as has been seen, 
was strongly urged by Mr. Benton. The treaty, so far as it related 
to the boundary of the Rio Grande, he pronounced " an act of unpar- 
alleled outrage on Mexico — the seizure of two thousand miles of her 
territory, without a word of explanation, and by virtue of a treaty with 
Texas to which she was no party." 

Senator Wright, of New York, made the same objection to voting 
for the treaty. In 1844, after the close of his senatorial services, in 
addressing a public meeting, he says : " I felt it my duty to vote 
against the ratification of the treaty for the annexation, I believed 
that the treaty, from the boundaries that must be implied from it, em- 
braced a country to which Texas had no claim, over which she had 
never asserted jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede. * * 
It appeared to me then if Mexico should tell us, ' We do not know 
you; we have no treaty to make with you,' and we were left to take 
possession by force, we must take the country as Texas has ceded it 
to us, and in doing that, we must do injustice to Mexico, and take a 
large portion of New Mexico, the people of which have never been under 
the jurisdiction of Texas. This to me was an insurmountable barrier : 
I could not place the country in that position." 

From the fact that Louisiana was said to have extended to the Rio 
Grande, the inference has been drawn by some that that river formed 
the south-western boundary of Texas ; and that although in our treaty 
with Spain for Florida we had relinquished that portion of Louisiana, 
the reannexation of Texas would restore the territory to that boundary. 
But it was maintained that Texas never extended to the westernmost 
line of Louisiana, as was evident from the well-known fact stated by 
Messrs. Benton, Wright, and others, that Texas had never even 
attempted to exercise jurisdiction over the towns and villages along 
that river ; nor had she until a very recent period claimed the Rio 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 825 

Grande to be the boundary. The declarations of these senators are 
supported by Texan authority. A map of Texas, published in 1837, 
and prepared by Stephen F. Austin, a prominent participator in the 
revolution, gives the Nueces as the south-western boundary. 

Respecting the objects of annexation, some facts have already been 
given. Whatever other reasons may have existed, the design of extend- 
ing and strengthening the dominion of slavery has been so often, openly 
and officially declared, as to leave no doubt that this was at least one 
of the leading objects of the measure. In addition to the numerous 
avowals made before the treaty was concluded, is the acknowledgment 
of the secretary of state after it had been signed. Writing to our 
charge in Mexico, he requests him, in making known to the Mexican 
government the fact that a treaty had been signed, and was about to be 
sent to the senate for ratification, to offer as a reason or apology for the 
act, " that the step was forced on the government of the United States 
in self-defense, in consequence of the policy adopted by Great Britain 
in reference to the abolition of slavery in Texas. It was impossible for 
the United States to witness with indifference the efforts of Great 
Britain to abolish slavery there. They could not but see that she had 
the means in her power, in the actual condition of Texas, to accomplish 
the objects of her policy, unless prevented by the most efficient mea- 
sures ; and that, if accomplished, it would lead to a state of things dan- 
gerous in the extreme to the adjacent states and the union itself See- 
ing this, this government has been compelled, by the necessities of the 
case, and a regard to its constitutional obligations, to take the step it 
has, as the only certain and effectual means of preventing it." 

But while the leading object of annexation was to give strength and 
security to slavery, the measure was doubtless aided by subordinate 
auxiliary influences. Mr. Benton, in a speech at Boonville, Indiana, in 
July, 1844, declared disunion to have been a primary object of tho 
treaty ; an intrigue for the presidency a secondary object ; laud specu- 
lation and stock-jobbing auxiliary objects. He said tke quantity of 
land claimed by the treaty correspondence was 200 millions of acres ; 
whereas Texas proper contained only 135,000 square miles, or 84,000,000 
acres ; the rest was to be taken from Mexico. To represent that there 
was any considerable quantity of good lands ungranted in Texas, was a 
fraud. They were not an equivalent for the ten millions of Texaa 
debts which, by the rejected treaty, the United States were to assume. 

Mr. Benton said the four objects above mentioned had brought for- 
ward the treaty at the time and iu the manner in which it came, just 
forty days before the Baltimore convention, and at the exact moment to 
mix with the presidential election, and to make dissension and mischief 



826 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

between the nortli and the south. He confined this charge to the primo 
movers and negotiators of the treaty. The land-speculators and stock- 
jobbers had acted a conspicuous part at Washington. " The city was a 
buzzard-roost ! The presidential mansion and the department of state 
were buzzard-roosts ! defiled and polluted by foul and voracious birds, 
in the shape of land-speculators and stock-jobbers, who saw their prey 
in the treaty, and spared no effort to secure it. Their own work was to 
support the treaty and its friends — to assail its opponents — to abuse 
senators who were against it — to vilify them, and lie upon them in 
speech ai d in writing — to establish a committee, still sitting at Wash- 
ington, to promote and protect their interest." 

Speaking of the debt of Texas, and of the interest which those who 
held this debt had in the treaty, Mr. B. said : " And what a debt ! 
created upon scrip and certificates of every imaginable degree of depre- 
ciation, and now held by jobbers, most of whom have purchased at two 
cents, and five cents, and ten cents in the dollar, and would have sent 
their scrip where it bore six per cent., worth upwards of one hundred 
cents to the dollar the day the treaty was ratified ; and where it bore ten 
per cent., as three millions of it did, would have been worth upwards of 
two hundred cents to the dollar. All this to go to the benefit, not even 
of Texas, but of speculators, and that while the United States refuse, 
and justly refuse, to assume the debts of her own states. These scrip 
holders were among the most furious treaty men at Washington." 

Mr. B. then proceeded to expose the fraudulent statements in the 
treaty correspondence, that only sixty-seven millions of acres had been 
granted ; and he showed from documents, a large number of grants, one 
of which contained forty-five millions of acres, nearly equal to the whole 
of Kentucky and Ohio. Some of them covered several degrees of lati- 
tude. The treaty was a fraud in not annulling the great grants made 
for considerations not fulfilled. Mr. B. repeated the charge of the design 
of disunion on the part of Mr. Calhoun and other southern men. To 
pick a quarrel with Great Britain, and also wfih the non-slaveholding 
states, was the open, undisguised object of the negotiation. The acqui- 
sition of Texas had been presented as a southern, sectional, slaveholding 
question ; and the admission of Texan states was to be submitted to a 
house of representatives, of whom a majority of forty -six were from non- 
slaveholdiug states. This, he conceived, was to be done to have the 
Texan states refused admission, and a pretext furnished the southern 
states for secession. All this was so well known in South Carolina, that 
the cry of " Texas or disunion," had been raised, not only before the 
treaty was rejected, but before it was made ! 

Much had appeared in southern papers to favor the suspicion of the 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 827 

designs imputed to southern politicians by Mr. Benton. A Calhoun 
paper at Columbia, South Carolina, after the appearance of Mr. Van 
Buren's letter on annexation, announced that whigs and democrats were 
dropping their party differences, and uniting like brothers upon the 
question of annexation "as one of absolute self-preservation." Mr. 
Van Buren was repudiated as a candidate for president, and could not 
be elected, if he should be nominated. He and Mr. Clay were " both 
dead, dead, dead, in the whole south." Nothing was to be expected 
from Cass or Stewart against the tariff; and there was no hope of the 
nomination of Tyler or Woodbury. The only hope of the south was in 
herself. Fears were expressed, that the treaty would be rejected, and 
that " Texas would be thrown into the arms of England." 

A large meeting, attended by 600 persons, had already been held in 
the Barnwell district, at which a resolution was adopted recommending 
measures to be taken with a view to a southern convention of the friends 
of annexation, to be held at Nashville, Tennessee, to farther the object. 
And a proposition from a citizen of Alabama seemed to find favor at the 
meeting, which was, that if the union would not accept Texas, then she 
should be annexed to the southern states. And it was proposed, that the 
proposed convention of the southern states should request the president 
to call congress together immediately, when the final issue should be 
made up, and the alternative distinctly presented to the free states, either 
to admit Texas into the union, or to proceed peaceably and calmly to 
arrange the terms of a dissolution of the union. 

At another meeting, held in Beaufort, the tariff of 1842 was 
denounced; and a resolution was adopted, declaring, " that if they are 
not permitted to bring Texas into the union peaceably, they solemnly 
announce to the world, that they will dissolve the union sooner than 
abandon Texas." At a meeting in Union district, it was declared: "We 
desire no political connection with the declared enemies of our peace. 
We neither dally nor doubt. We hold to our rights — give up the union, 
and leave the consequences to Grod." Several other meetings were held, 
at which similar resolutions were adopted, and a southern convention 
proposed. Some of the Carolinians went so far as to counsel resistance 
by " state action." The leading advocate of this measure was the Hon. 
B. B. Rhett. It was, however, discountenanced by Mr. Calhoun and 
others, who were not yet ready for that kind of action 

At 4th of July celebrations, disunion was the leading theme of ora- 
tions and toasts. On most occasions a southern convention was men- 
tioned as the first resort; and if that should prove unavailing, then 
there must be a " speedy application of the ' rightful remedy.' " The 
union was spoken of as of little consequence, in comparison with the 



828 THE AMER. IAN STATESMAN. 

annexation of the " lone star" to " the glorious galaxy of her southern 
sisters." One toast says : " Give us Texas or ' divide the spoons.' ' 
.Another : " Speedy annexation at all and every hazard." Indeed, the 
common sentiment, as expressed on public occasions, was, that Texas 
must be annexed, and the tariff of 1842 must be repealed, or disunion 
would take place. 

The idea of a disunion convention at Nashville, did not find favor in 
Tennessee. At a meeting of the citizens of Davidson county, resolu 
tions were adopted, " protesting against the desecration of the soil of 
Tennessee by any act of men holding within its borders a convention for 
any such object." Richmond, Virginia, having been proposed by some 
as a more suitable place than Nashville for the convention, an expression 
of feeling, similar to that of the citizens of Tennessee, was given at a Clay 
meeting in Richmond, against the holding of such a convention '' in the 
land of Washington — in the capital of the state of his birth." 

The repeal of the protective tariff was scarcely less an object of desire 
than the annexation of Texas, and the few northern democrats who had 
cooperated in defeating M'Kay's low tariff bill at the preceding session, 
were made the special objects of censure. The query has often suggested 
itself, whether southern statesmen have been sincere in their protesta- 
tions against the tariff system as imposing upon them such intolerable 
burdens as in their view to justify resistance, or as taxing them at all. 
What has led many to suspect their sincerity is, that the question as re- 
gards additional taxation is not, or need not be, a matter of speculation, 
but is susceptible of being answered by a reference to facts. Purchasers 
can not help knowing when they are compelled to pay higher prices. Daily 
and weekly prices current determine this question infallibly. To these the 
advocates of protection have appealed in support of the proposition that 
prices have not been enhanced by adequate protective duties. Since at 
every revision of the tariff, the opponents of the system have invariably 
predicted an oppressive increase of prices, no such permanent result hav- 
ing followed, many have regarded the complaints of the south as intended 
merely for effect. 

Whilst efforts were making in congress, in 1844, to reduce the duties 
imposed by the act of 1842, which was represented as peculiarly oppres- 
sive in its operations, a number of the principal merchants in the city 
of Richmond, Virginia, published a comparative statement of wholesale 
prices of goods in the various branches of trade in that city, made up 
from actual sales in the year 1841, when the tariff, under the compro- 
mise act, ranged at the lowest rates of duty, and in 1843, the first year 
after the act of 1842 went into operation. Of a few articles only — soma 
of the more important — the prices are here given : 



Prices 

$85 


in 1841. 


Prices in 1843. 
$70 to 75 


70 




57 


90 




77 


90 




81 


115 




95 


18 




14 


04 




03 to 03i 


07 




051 to 06J 


12^ 


to 163 


09 to 14 


05 


to 051 


03| to 04 


1 00 


to 2 25 


1 60 to 1 65 



WHOLESALE PRICES OF GOODS. * 829 

American bar iron, per ton, 
English do do 

Swedes do do 

Tredegar Richmond manufacture 
American blistered steel, per ton 
Collins' best axes, per dozen 
Castings, hollow, per pound 
Flat iron, do 

Anvils, do 

Nails, Richmond made, do 
Sack salt ranged from 
Spades and shovels, 20 per cent. less. 
Cross cut and mill saws, 121 per cent. less. 

Wood screws, though prohibited by duty, were 20 per cent, lower, and 
of a much superior quality to those formerly imported. 

Cotton osnaburgs per yard 
3-4 brown shirtings " 

4.4 " » « 

6-4 ** sheetings " 

Domestic prints " 

During the year 1840, say these merchants, large quantities of British 
prints were imported, that cost from 22 to 28c per yard, and in 1843, 
prints of as good quality were produced in this country as low as 15c 
per yard, which entirely excluded British prints from our markets. 

Irish linens were imported in 1841 duty free; in 1843, with a duty 
of 25 per cent., they were 20 per cent, lower than in 1841. 

English and French cloths and cassimeres, paying a duty of 38 per 
cent, in 1841, and of 40 per cent in 1843, had fallen not less than 20 
per cent. 

From a statement made out in the treasury department, it appeared 
that the importations of gold and silver coin and bullion for the year 
ending September, 1843, amounted to $23,741,641. During the ^wo 
preceding years, they were but $9,075,649. 

It was apprehended in 1842, that, by raising the duties, the importations 
would be so diminished as to cause a serious decrease of revenue. [See 
report of the minority of the committee on manufactures. Chapter 
LXIII.] The result showed the apprehension to have been erroneous. 
The average yearly amount of receipts from customs for the years 1840, 
1841, and 1842, was about $16,000,000 ; for the years 1844, 1845, and 
184G, it was upwards of $26,000,000 annually 



rices in 1841. 


Prices in 1843 


8 to lOc 


6^ to 7^c 


6| to 8^ 


4^ to 61 


81 to 1 1 


6i to 8^ 


11 to 14^ 


8^ to 10^ 


121 to 18 


8^ to 121 



830 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

To the foregoing statements may be added the fact, that the vates of 
exchange and interest were greatly reduced. Reports of the money 
market in the spring of 1844, state that good paper was discounted in 
some of the eastern cities at 4 to 5 per cent., owing, it was said, to the 
reflux of specie from abroad, and especially to large deposits in the 
banks, as a result of the general prosperity of the country. 

In view of these facts, which southerners themselves did not contro- 
vert, the question recurs, Did they believe their own representation of 
the injury inflicted upon them by the tarifi"? As to the cawse of the 
improved condition of the country, there might be an honest diSerence 
of opinion, while in respect to the improvement itself, it is not easy to 
conceive how such difierence could exist. The repeated failures of their 
predictions of the state of things which would necessarily follow the 
adoption of protective measures, should have induced them at least to 
distrust their own opinions. But it was with them a fixed theory, that 
to whatever extent, or from whatever cause, prices may have been re- 
duced, the reduction would have been still greater had not the duties 
been imposed ; and the supposed injury they suffered must have con- 
sisted, not in actual enhancement of prices, but in their being prevented 
by the tariff from falling as low as they would otherwise have done . 

The presidential term of John Tyler expired on the 3d of March, 
1845. The crowning act of his administration was the annexation of 
Texas. Whether the ultimate benefits of the acquisition will ever counter- 
balance its cost, has ever been a matter of doubt. To the debtor side 
is to be placed the war with Mexico, with its concomitant evils, the 
least of which was the debt contracted for its prosecution. One of the 
declared objects of the measure was " to extend the area of freedom'." 
One of its consequences must infallibly be to keep alive the exciting ques- 
tion of slavery for an indefinite period, perhaps during the existence of the 
republic. The time is not distant when, to preserve the equilibrium of 
the slave states — the avowed object of annexation — applications will be 
made for the admission of new states formed out of the present state of 
Texas ; and each successive demand for admission will revive the un- 
happy and distracting controversy. 

Another effect has been apparently to weaken resistance to the extension 
of slavery. Each concession to the demands of the slave-holding states 
renders the next more easy. The fact that the constitution protects 
slavery, and permits its extension, has been interpreted into an argu- 
ment for placing it, in respect to political power, on an equal footing 
with freedom. The idea is by no means confined to the south, that this 
claim of slavery to political equality should be conceded as a constitu- 
tional right. This sentiment has had no slight influence in disposing 



INAUGURATION OF MR. POLK. 831 

the north, on each admission of a free state, to allow it to be counter- 
poised by the simultaneous admission of a slave state. 

Constitutions for state governments having been presented to congress 
by the territories of Florida and Iowa, acts were passed for their admission 
as states into the union. 

An act was passed at this session, to establish a uniform time for 
choosing presidential electors in all the states. Previously, they were 
required to be chosen within thirty-four days before they were to meet 
in their respective states to cast their votes for president and vice-presi- 
dent. By the act of 1845, the election in all the states for choosing 
the electors is on the Tuesday next after the first Monday of November. 

The first act for the great reduction of postage, was also passed at 
this session. Postage was, by this act, reduced to five cents on single 
letters, carried not exceeding 300 miles ; over that distance, ten cents. 



CHAPTER LXVII. 

INAUGURATION OF MR. POLK. DEATH OF GEN. JACKSON. WAR WITH 

MEXICO. TREATY OF PEACE. 

James K. Polk was inaugurated as president of the United States, on 
the 4th of March, 1845. His inaugural address was one of unusual 
length, and presented his views much in detail. Having descanted on 
the excellency of our government, and the value of the union, he enjoined 
a sacred observance of the compromises of the constitution, and depre- 
cated interference with certain " domestic institutions," as an " attempt 
to disturb or destroy the compromises of the constitution," which must 
" lead to the most ruinous and disastrous consequences." He expressed 
his " deep regret, that, in some sections of our country, misguided per- 
sons have occasionally indulged in schemes and agitations, whose object 
is the destruction of domestic institutions existing in other sections ;" 
but he was " happy to believe that there existed among the great mass 
of our people a devotion to the union of the states which would protect 
it against the moral treason of any who would contemplate its destruc- 
tion." 

He declared his opposition to " national banks and other extraneous 
institutions, to control or strengthen the government." He regarded it 
his duty to recommend and " to enforce the strictest economy in the 



832 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

expenditure of the public money." He congratulated the people " on 
the entire restoration of the credit of the general government, and that 
of many of the states." His policy in regard to the tariff is shadowed 
forth in his adoption of the following sentence : " Justice and sound 
policy forbid +he federal government to foster one branch of industry to 
the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to 
the injury of another portion of our common country." He was in favor 
of a tariff for revenue merely, but so adjusted as to afford incidental pro- 
tection to home industry. 

He congratulated the country on the reiinion of Texas to the United 
States : it only remained to agree upon the terms. Other governments 
bad no right to interfere, or to take exceptions to their reiinion. " The 
world," he said, " has nothing to fear from military ambition in our gov- 
ernment. While the chief magistrate and the popular branch of congress 
are elected for short terms by the suffrages of those millions who must, 
in their own persons, bear all the burdens and miseries of war, our gov- 
ernment can not be otherwise than pacific." The annexation was ''.not 
to be looked on as the conquest of a nation seeking to extend her domin- 
ions by arms and violence, but as the peaceful acquisition of a territory 
once her own ;" an act which he regarded as " diminishing the chances 
of war." Nor did the new president forget to reassert " our title to the 
country of the Oregon to be ' clear and unquestionable,' " and to pledge 
himself " to maintain, by all constitutional means, the right of the United 
States to that portion of our territory :" and he recommended that the 
jurisdiction of our laws should be extended over our emigrants in that 
country. 

Mr. Polk's cabinet was constituted as follows : James Buchanan, of 
Pennsylvania, secretary of state ; Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, 
secretary of the treasury ; William L. Marcy, of New York, secretary 
of war ; George Bancroft, of Massachusetts, secretary of the navy ; Cave 
Johnson, of Tennessee, postmaster-general ; John Y. Mason, of Virginia, 
attorney-general. 

In June, Louis McLane, of Maryland, (formerly of Delaware,) was 
appointed minister to Great Britain, in the place of Edward Everett, 
recalled. It was said that, before the selection of Mr. McLane for this 
mission, it had been offered successively to two citizens of South Caro- 
lina, Messrs. Pickens and Elmore ; and, it was believed, also to Mr. Cal- 
houn, of the same state, and Mr. Woodbury, of New Hampshire ; all of 
whom had declined. 

On the 8th of June, 1845, Gen. Jackson died at his residence, the 
Hermitage, aged 78 years. The announcement of this event produced 
a deep and general sensation throughout the country. Old party differ- 



WAR WITH MEXICO. 833 

ences were forgotten ; and the people of all classes and parties joined in 
appropriate demonstrations of respect to the memory of the departed 
hero aud patriot. However public opinion may have been divided in 
relation to his merits as a statesman, few questioned the sincerity of his 
patriotism. 

Mr. Polk, on his accession to the presidency, had upon his hands two 
foreign questions to dispose of — the controversy with Great Britain 
respecting her claims in Oregon, and the difficulty with Mexico arising 
from the annexation of Texas, still claimed by the former as a part of 
her territory. 

On the 6th of March, 1845, only six days after the date of the act of 
annexation, the Mexican minister, Almonte, addressed to Mr. Calhoun, 
secretary of state, a letter, in which, pursuant to the instructions of his 
government, he protested against the act of congress dismembering the 
province of Texas, an integral part of Mexican territory, and admitting 
it into the American union. He declared the purpose of Mexico to 
enforce her right to recover the territory of which she had been unjustly 
despoiled ; and he gave notice of the termination of his mission, and 
asked for his passports. Mr. Buchanan, the new secretary of state, in 
reply, says, the president trusts that the government of Mexico will view 
the act in a more favorable light, and declares " that his most strenuous 
efforts shall be devoted to the amicable adjustment of every cause of com- 
plaint between the two governments." On the arrival of the news of 
annexation at the city of Mexico, diplomatic relations between the two 
governments there too were abruptly terminated ; and the proceedings of 
the Mexican congress manifested a highly belligerent spirit. 

On the 4th of June, 1845, president Jones, of Texas, issued a procla- 
mation, stating that Mexico was disposed to a peaceful settlement of 
difficulties, by acknowledging Texan independence, if Texas would main- 
tain her separate existence, and declaring a cessation of hostilities against 
Mexico, till the subject could be laid before the Texan congress and con- 
vention of the people. This was regarded as evidence of the president's 
indisposition toward annexation. The congress assembled on the 16th 
of June, pursuant to the proclamation of president Jones; who com- 
municated the resolutions of annexation passed by the United States 
congress, and submitted to the senate the treaty proposed by Mexico for 
acknowledging the independence of Texas, upon three conditions, viz. : 

(1.) Texas not to annex herself or become subject to any country 
whatever. (2.) Limits and other arrangements to be matters of agree- 
ment in the final treaty. (3.) Texas to consent to refer the disputed 
points with regard to territory and other matters, to the arbitration of 
umpires. The senate, it was said, unanimously rejected the proposition 

53 



834 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

from Mexico, and adopted resolutions accepting the terms for annexation 
to the United States. 

Mexico considered annexation on our part as au act of war, and 
declared her intention to resent the injury, and to resort to arms. War 
appeared for a time to be inevitable. In compliance with the request 
both of the congress of Texas and the convention of the people, our gov- 
ernment sent an army into that territory to defend it against the threat- 
ened invasion. President Polk, in his message to congress of December, 
1845, said he " deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, to order a 
strong squadron to' the coast of Mexico, and to concentrate a sufficient 
military force on the western frontier of Texas." The army, he said, 
had been ordered to take position between the Nueces and the Del Norte. 
Both the army and the navy had been instructed to commit no act of 
hostility against Mexico, unless she declared war, or commenced aggres- 
sions. The result had been, he said, that Mexico had made no aggres- 
sive movement. 

The president complained of the delinquency of Mexico in the pay- 
ment of the instalments of the indemnity. Only three of the twenty 
quarterly instalments had been paid ; and seven of the remaining seven- 
teen were due. The claims of more than three millions which had been 
left undecided by the commission, had since been recognized by a treaty 
providing for their examination and settlement by a joint commission. 
This treaty, concluded at Mexico, in November, 1843, had been ratified 
by our government, but it had not yet received the ratification of the 
Mexican government. 

Not possessing the power, without the authority of congress, to enforce 
adequate remedies for the injuries we had suffered, and Mexico having 
made no hostile movement for many weeks after our army and navy had 
been on the frontier, the president had taken measures to ascertain the 
purposes of the Mexican government, and in November an answer had 
been received, declaring its consent to renew diplomatic relations. A 
minister, (Mr. Slidell, of Louisiana,) was accordingly sent, with power 
to settle all pending difficulties. From the tone of the message, it was 
reasonable to infer, that, if negotiation should fail, war would ensue. 

Whatever hopes may have been entertained of a successful negotiation, 
were soon disappointed. The resumption of negotiations was agreed 
upon with the government of Mexico under the administratlim of presi- 
dent Herrera. But scarcely had our minister reached his destination, 
before the^overnment had undergone another of those revolutions which 
kept that country in a state little better than one of complete anarchy. 
Gen. Paredes, who commanded the forces destined for the Texan fron- 
tier, having been informed of the intended negotiation by which it waa 



WAR WITH MEXICO. 835 

apprehended that a part of the Mexican territory was to be surrendei-ed to 
the United States, and being determined to prevent it, returned with his 
irmy to the city of Mexico, where he was joined by the regular army, 
and assumed the government. It appeared, however, that, before the 
arrival of Paredes, the government had refused to receive our minister, 
on the ground of the inadequacy of his special power to treat upon the 
questions which were intended by the Mexican government to be made 
the subject of negotiation. Mr. Slidell, not being received, retired to 
Jalapa, where he remained until the 28th of March, 1846, when he 
departed for home. The government of Mexico refused to recognize 
him, except for the purpose of treating in relation to Texas and the 
boundary. He had, in obedience to his instructions, demanded to bo 
received as a minister plenipotentiary. 

The act of annexation was consummated on the 4th of July, 1845 ; 
the people of Texas represented in a state convention, having accepted 
terms proposed by our government. Immediately after this event, the 
president, aware that it would be considered by Mexico as an act of war 
on the part of the United States, and apprehending hostilities as a conse- 
quence, ordered Gen. Taylor with his troops to some place on the gulf 
of Mexico, from which he could, when necessary, proceed to the defense 
of the western frontier of Texas. The place selected by Gen. Taylor, 
was Corpus Christi, on the west side of the Nueces, the extreme western 
settlement made by the people of Texas. Gen. Taylor was instructed 
by the department not to disturb " the Mexican forces at the posts in 
their possession" on the east side of the Rio Grande, " so long as the 
relations of peace between the United States and Mexico continue." He 
was repeatedly directed to confine his defense and protection of Texan 
territory, so far as the same had been occupied by the people of Texas, 
and not to interfere with any " Mexican settlements over which the 
republic of Texas did not exercise jurisdiction at the period of annexa- 
tion, or shortly before that event." 

The army, after having been at Corpus Christi from August to January, 
and no hostile act having been committed by the Mexicans, was ordered, 
in January, 1846, to take position on the left bank of the Rio Grande, 
It left Corpus Christi early in March. Gen. Taylor, with a company 
of dragoons commanded by Col. Twiggs, in advance of the main army, 
arrived at Point Isabel, on the north side of the Rio Grande, on the 
24th of March, the distance from Corpus Christi, being 1 19 miles. 
Point Isabel is a few miles below Matamoras, which is on the opposite 
side of the river. The fleet of transports reached the same place half an 
hour after. When near Point Isabel, Gen. Taylor was met by a depu 
tation of 30 or 40 men, with a message from Gen. Mejia, a Mexican 



8§§ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

commander, protesting against the invasion. On the approach pf the 
fleet of transports, the custom-house at Point Isabel, and several other 
buildings were set on fire by the Mexican commandant, and consumed. 
On the 28th, the army of occupation, consisting of about 3,500 men, 
arrived and camped opposite Matamoras. About one month after the 
arrival of our army at the Rio Grande, hostilities were commenced. 

On the 1 Ith of May, congress received from the president a message, 
announcing a state of war, which, he said, had been commenced on the 
part of Mexico, whose government, " after a long-continued series of 
menaces, had at last invaded our territory, and shed the blood of our 
fellow-citizens on our own soil." The president "invokes the prompt 
action of congress to recognize the existence of the war, and to place at 
the disposition of the executive the means of prosecuting the war with 
vigor, and thus hastening the restoration of peace." 

A bill providing for raising the necessary men, and money, 
($10,000,000,) was immediately reported in the house of representatives, 
and passed that body 142 to 14. The senate passed it the next morn- 
ing, after a slight modification, 40 to 2, and returned it to the house the 
same evening. The next day (13th,) the amendments of the senate hav- 
ing been concurred in, the bill was signed by the presiding officers of the 
two houses and the president, who on the same day issued the war pro- 
clamation. 

The vote on the passage of the bill is not an accurate expression of the 
sentiment of either house on the war question in general ; but only as to 
the proper course to be pursued under existmg circumstances. A large 
number, probably most of the whigs, believed the war to be unjust on the 
part of the United States ; its cause being the dismemberment of a part of 
the territory of Mexico. They also considered the war to have been uncon- 
stitutionally made by the president. His ordering the army into Mexican 
territory was an act of war, tantamount to a declaration of war, which the 
constitution devolved exclusively upon congress. Many who entertained 
these views voted for the bill, believing that, war existing, from whatever 
cause, or however unlawfully made, it was the duty of every citizen to sup- 
port it. The mass of those even who had throughout denounced the course 
of the government as a series of outrages upon the rights of Mexico, 
seemed to concur in the popular sentiment : " Our country, right or 
wrong" — " We are in a war, and, however unjust, we must fight it out." 
Others voted for the bill from the bare motive of expediency^ remember- 
ing the fate of those who opposed the war of 1812. 

The opponents of the administration being known to differ with the 
majority respecting the origin and the justice of the war, and yet to be in 
favor of furnishing supplies for the army, the majority took advantage 



WAR WITH MEXICO. 



of this latter fact to obtain from the minority a formal sanction of the 
war. For this purpose, the bill was preceded by a preamble, declaring 
the war to exist hy the act of the republic of Mexico. In the senate, 
appeals were made to the majority to waive this declaration, and a 
motion was made to strike out the preamble, but it was lost, 18 to 28. 
Several of the minority voted for the bill, trusting to a future oppor- 
tunity to justify themselves. Some voted under formal protest ; and 
others refused to vote at all. Senators Mangum, John M. Clayton, and 
Dayton, had their protests against the preamble entered on the journal. 
Thomas Clayton and John Davis voted in the negative. 

But for the preamble, the bill would probably have passed the scisatc 
unanimously. To that, there were two objections. One was, that a s'a<:i3 
of war did not exist ; and another, that, if it existed, it was not by the 
act of Mexico. The latter, of course, involved the question of boundary ; 
the existence of war by the act of Mexico necessarily presupposing the 
Rio Grande to be the boundary between that country and Texas. 
Unless this was the fact, it was not true, as the president had averred in 
his message, that Mexico had " invaded our territory, and shed the 
blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil." 

The members of the house who voted against the bill, were Messrs. 
Adams, Ashmun, Grrinnell, Hudson, and King, of Massachusetts ; 
Severance, of Maine ; Cranston, of Rhode Island ; Culver, of New 
York ; Strohm, of Pennsylvania ; Giddings, Root, Tilden, and Vance, 
of Ohio. 

Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, asked to be excused from voting on the 
bill. No opportunity had been allowed a whig to say a word upon it. 
There was no need of such unparalleled haste. Gen. Taylor had, in 
the exercise of his discretionary power, vested in him by the executive, 
called on the governors of the contiguous states for ten thousand troops, 
and had probably ere now obtained aid, and beaten back the enemy. 
One day might be given to the consideration of the bill. He objected 
to the preamble of the bill, because it set forth a falsehood. It was 
true that an informal war existed ; but that Mexico commenced it, was 
utterly untrue. He was in favor of the provisions of the bill ; for, 
whether on our own territory or that of Mexico, if the army was in 
danger, he would vote for the men and money required for the rescue. 
But he protested against defiling the measure with the unfounded state- 
ment that Mexico had begun the war. The purpose of its anthers was 
to make the whigs vote against the administration, or force them to aid 
in throwing a shelter over it by voting for a bill which set forth that 
this needless and unexpected war was commenced by Mexico. 

If, said Mr. D., the bill contained any recitation on that point, in 



838 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

truth and in justice, it should be that this war had been liegun by the 
president. The Nueces was the boundary. The country between that 
river and the Del Norte was in possession of, and inhabited by, Mexico. 
The president had of his own will ordered Gen. Taylor and his army to 
take post at Corpus Christi, on the west bank of the Nueces, and, 
several months afterward, he had ordered him through the disputed 
country to the Del Norte. The Mexican authorities had met him, and 
protested against the aggression, and warned him to retire east of the 
Nueces, or he would be deemed to be making war upon Mexico ; and they 
would resort to force. In execution of his orders from the executive, 
he presses on to Matamoras, mounts a battery of cannon within three 
hundred yards of it, whence he could, in a few hours, batter it down. 
He then blockades the port of Matamoras, orders off English and 
American vessels, and directs the capture of a Spanish schooner. The 
Mexican commander treats these acts as acts of war ; and on the 25th 
of April, Gen. Taylor is informed by a messenger from the Mexican 
camp, that hostilities exist, and will be prosecuted according to the 
laws of civilized nations. That night a detachment of the Mexican 
army crosses the Rio Grande ; Gen. Taylor sends out a scouting party 
to reconnoitre, which attacks the Mexicans, and is defeated and 
captured by the Mexicans ; and thus war is raging in bloody earnestness. 

It was our own president who had begun this war. He had been 
carrying it on for months in a series of acts. Congress, which was vested 
with the sole power to make war, he had not deigned to consult, or to 
ask for authority. Now, when it had unexpectedly broke forth in 
bloody reverses, his friends sought to protect him by charging Mexico 
with being the author of the war; and he, in cold blood, taught others 
to sacrifice a brave and veteran officer, whenever it might become neces- 
sary to cover his mistakes and incompetency. He had got the nation 
into difficulty, from which he could not relieve it; and he now asked 
congress to assume his duties and responsibilities. Mr. D. repeated his 
readiness to vote for supplies, at the same time protesting against the 
falsehood. He would fight the Mexicans until we drove them across the 
Rio Grande, and retrieved our renown. He would then withdraw our 
army to the east side of the Nueces, and settle by treaty all our disputes 
with that weak and distracted country upon the most lioeral terms. 

A history of this war does not come within the design of this work. 
It may be remarked, in general, that it was attended with a succession 
of brilliant achievements by the two distinguished generals, Taylor and 
Scott. The triumphant march of the latter to the Mexican capital, has 
scarcely a parallel in modern times. But the glory acquired by the 
success of our arms, was obtained at an immense sacrifice. The loss of 



WAR WITH MEXICO. 839 

life on the several fields of battle, though great, was far exceeded by 
death from sickness. Such was the mortality among our troops, that 
almost whole companies were cut down by disease. The expenses of 
the war, though comparatively a minor consideration, were enormous, 
. the most extravagant prices having been paid for almost every thing 
hired or purchased. The painful rupture of the domestic relations — 
the sorrows and sufferings of widowhood and orphanage — the demoral- 
izing effects upon society — all of which are the inseparable concomitants 
of war, are evils of incalculably greater magnitude, which find no equiv- 
alent in any mere territorial acquisition. 

On the fourth of August, 1846, the president sent to the senate a 
confidential message, informing that body that he had resolved on 
making proposals for opening a negotiation with Mexico — a letter con- 
taining such overture being already on the way to that country — and 
askicig of congress an appropriation of money to aid him in negotiating 
a peace. The object of the money was the purchase of Mexican terri- 
tory, if the same should be deemed expedient. A bill for appropriating 
two millions of dollars for this purpose, was introduced in the house of 
representatives. In the rapid progress of this bill towards its consum- 
mation, Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, moved a proviso, which was car- 
ried, declaring, that, as a condition to the acquisition of any territory 
from Mexico, by virtue of any treaty that might be negotiated, slavery 
should never exist in any part of the said territory. This amendment 
induced many of its friends to vote against the bill, which was passed, 
notwithstanding, by a majority of six votes, and sent to the senate on 
Saturday night, (August 1 1,) but too late to be acted upon that night. 

Before the bill came up in the senate on Monday, the plan was said 
to have been formed of introducing the appropriation, freed from Mr. 
Wilraot's proviso, as an amendment to the civil appropriation bill ; but 
the design was abandoned from an apprehension that it would cause the 
loss of the whole mass of appropriations for the support of the govern- 
ment. The bill, as it came from the house, was taken up about twenty 
minutes before twelve o'clock, the hour fixed for closing the legislative 
session. In the midst of the debate, when, as was supposed, there re- 
mained yet ten minutes to dispose of the question, the house, whose 
clock was ten minutes faster than that of the senate, was adjourned by 
the speaker ; and the action of the senate was abruptly terminated. 
Thus was lost the proposition for money to buy territory and a peace 
from Mexico. From the introduction of the anti-slavery provision of 
this bill, is derived the familiar title of the " Wilmot proviso," which 
has since been so generally applied to similar provisions. It is sub- 
stantially the same as the proviso in the celebrated ordinance of 1787, 
prohibiting slavery in the territory north-west of the Ohio. 



540 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

During the interval between the adjournment of congress in August, 
and its reassembling in December, nothing occurred to change essentially 
the aspect of our relations with Mexico. The commerce of Great Bri- 
tain had been materially affected by the war between the United States 
and Mexico. Her anpual export trade to the latter country amounted 
to $5,000,000. British capitalists also had $10,000,000 invested in the 
mines of Mexico ; and the public debt of Mexico to Great Britain was 
about the same amount. Deeply solicitous, therefore, for the restoration 
of peace between the two American republics, the British government 
had twice during the summer offered to mediate. The first of these 
offers having been made before the settlement of the Oregon controversy, 
and Great Britain, consequently being herself sensible that she did not 
occupy the position of unbiased impartiality, the offer was merely to the 
effect, that, if the United States were disposed to accept the mediation, 
it would be tendered. Subsequently, the Oregon question having been 
settled, an explicit offer was made, which, however, was not favorably 
received by our government. 

The 29th congress reassembled on the 7th of December, 1846. The 
major part of the president's message was devoted to a detailed history 
of our diflBculties with Mexico. He recapitulated the wrongs commit- 
ted by Mexico, and the causes of the war ; declared its justice on the 
part of the United States ; our disposition to peace and harmony, and 
our right to annex Texas; and he repeated the charge against Mexico of 
having invaded our soil. As the truth of this charge depended, of course, 
upon the validity of the claim of Texas to all the territory east of the Rio 
Grande, he asserted the justice of that claim, in opposition to Messrs. 
Benton, Wright, Adams, and others. He founded this assertion upon 
the acknowledged fact, that Louisiana, as acquired in 1803, extended 
to that river, and upon the assumption of what was by them denied, 
that Texas extended to the western boundary of ancient Louisiana ; it 
being beyond dispute, that Texas had never exercised any jurisdiction 
whatever, over the inhabitants in the valley of the Rio Grande. He 
also mentioned the non-acceptance of the offers of our government to 
negotiate peace, and the continued refusal to receive a minister from the 
United States. 

As one of the evidences of the independence of Texas, the president 
referred to the treaty made with Texan authorities by Santa Anna, in 
1836, when prisoner of war, in which he acknowledged the independence 
of Texas. The allegation that, in the condition of a prisoner, he was 
incapable of making a treaty binding upon his government, and the fact 
that the act was disavowed by that government, the president seemed to 
til ink were countervailed by the facts, that he had been defeated in his 



WAR WITH MEXICO. 841 

attempt to conquer Texas ; that his authority had net been revoked; 
and that by virtue of this treaty he had obtained his release, and hostili- 
ties had been suspended. 

Santa Anna, who had been expelled from power and banished by a 
revolution in 1844, was an exile in Cuba when the war commenced. He 
had subsequently been permitted, by the authority of Mr. Polk, to pass 
the blockade, and return to Mexico, where, it was apprehended, he would 
be again found in command of the Mexican army. The president, hav- 
ing been censured by the opposition for this act, he oflFered, in justifica- 
tion, that there was no prospect of a pacific adjustment with the govern- 
ment of Parades; that there were symptoms of a new revolution in 
Mexico ; that there was a large party in favor of Santa Anna, who had 
professed to entertain views favorable to the United States, and with 
whom it was probable a settlement of difficulties might be effected. For 
these reasons he had permitted his return to Mexico. 

Santa Anna arrived at the city of Mexico the 15th of September. 
The revolution had already taken place. The offer of the supreme 
executive power was at once made to him on the part of the provisional 
government organized by General Salas, after the fall of Paredes. 
Santa Anna declined the offer of the civil supremacy, but assumed the 
military command, declaring that he would " die fighting the perfidious 
enemy, or lead the Mexicans to victory." Near the close of the year, 
he was elected provisional president. In a correspondence with Gen. 
Taylor, he declared that Mexico would not listen to overtures of peace, 
unless the national territory should be first evacuated by our forces, and 
our vessels of war withdrawn from their hostile attitude. 

A bill was passed, authorizing the issue of treasury notes and the 
negotiation of a loan or loans, to the amount of $28,000,000. A 
bill was also introduced for an appropriation of $3,000,000, for the 
same purpose as that of the preceding session for $2,000,000, to which 
the Wilmot proviso had been attached, and which had been lost. Before 
the passage of the bill, Mr. Hamlin, of Ohio, moved the " Wilmot pro- 
viso" as an amendment. This proviso, after an unsuccessful motion of 
Mr. Douglas to amend by prohibiting slavery in acquired territory north 
of 36 deg. 30 min., was adopted, 110 to 89. The bill finally passed 
the house, 115 to 110. A similar bill was also reported in the senate, 
in which body the " Wilmot proviso," moved by Mr. Upham, of Ver- 
mont, was rejected, 21 to 31 ; and the bill was passed, (March 1,) 29 to 
24. The bill was sent to the house of representatives, where it was 
taken up the last day of the session, (March 3,) and, on motion of Mr. 
Wilmot, amended in committee of the whole, by the adoption of the 
anti-slavery proviso, 90 to 80, and so reported to the house. But the 



842 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

house disagreed to the report of the committee of the whole, 97 to 102, 
and the bill was finally passed by the house without the proviso, 115 
to 81. 

In the senate, the debate on the three million bill was one of more 
than ordinary interest. It was animated and protracted, and was par- 
ticipated in by a large number of the senators. The whole war question 
was reviewed. A somewhat sharp collision took place between Mr. Cal- 
houn and Mr. Benton, who difi'ered in relation both to the objects of the 
war, and the manner in which it should in future be conducted. Mr. Ben- 
ton urged the plan of the administration, which contemplated a vigorous 
prosecution of offensive war, and an effort, after reducing Vera Cruz, to 
penetrate the country to the city of Mexico. Mr. Calhoun's plan, (pre- 
viously suggested by Mr. Berrien,) was to take and hold the Mexican 
posts, assume a line of boundary on which we would be content to settle 
all difficulties, retire our forces to that line, and defend all within that 
boundary, until Mexico should be willing to make peace by conceding 
to those limits ; her posts to be then relinquished. 

Mr. Calhoun, in relation to the objects of the war, said they appeared 
to him, from an examination of the president's message, to be threefold: 
(1.) To repel invasion; (2.) To establish the Rio del Norte as the west- 
ern boundary ; (3). To obtain payment of the indemnities due our citi- 
zens for claims against Mexico. The president had not recommended 
that congress should declare war ; he assumed that it existed already, 
and called upon congress to recognize its existence. That the war 
existed, and that blood had been spilled on American soil, he had 
assumed, on the ground that the Rio del Norte was the western bound- 
ary of Texas. And congress, in declaring that war had been made by 
Mexico, had recognized that river as the boundary. Hence, the crossing 
of that river by the Mexicans was considered invasion, which was to be 
repelled. These two, repelling invasion, and establishing boundary, 
were primary objects; and, being involved in the war, the object of 
indemnity, though not a sufficient cause of war in itself, yet, being 
involved in war, might be made one of the objects for which the war 
should be prosecuted. 

Mr. Benton defended the president from the blame of the war, and 
charged it upon Mr. Calhoun. The causes of the war were farther back 
than the inarch to the Rio Grande. They began with the cession of 
Texas to Spain in 1819, by the Florida treaty. Mr. C. was one of the 
majority of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, who had given it away; the blame 
of which had long been unjustly charged upon Mr. Adams, the negotia- 
tor of the treaty, who, it was said, desired to clip the wings of the slave- 
holding states. Mr. B. next adverted to the direct proofs of the sen- 



WAR WITH MEXICO. 848 

ator's authorship of the war. On the first rumors of the victory of San 
Jacinto, he had, in the senate, proposed the immediate recognition of 
the independence of Texas, and her admission as a state ; and urged, as 
a reason for the admission, that it would prevent that country from 
having the power to annoy the slaveholding states. This act would 
Lave plunged us into instant war with Mexico. Mr. B. referred to the 
correspondence of Mr. Calhoun, as secretary of state, with the British 
ministers, in which he had avowed the determination of the government 
to maintain the principles of slavery ; and in carrying out that determi- 
nation, he had induced Mr. Tyler to adopt the course he did, on the last 
day of his presidency, which measure had precipitated us into the war. 

The choice which the alternative resolutions gave as to the mode of 
annexation, properly belonged to the new president. So strong was 
the expectation that this choice would be left to Mr. Polk, that the 
suggestion that it might be snatched out of his hands by the expir- 
ing administration, a senator (Mr. M'Duffie) had declared that they 
would not have the audacity to do it. But they did have the audacity. 
They did do it ! or rather he did it, (looking to Mr. Calhoun ;) for Mr. 
Tyler was nothing in anything relating to the Texas question, from the 
time of the arrival of his secretary of state. " On Sunday, the 2d of 
March, the day which preceded the last day of his authority, on that 
day, sacred to peace, the council sat that acted on the resolutions, and 
in the darkness of a night howling with the storm, and battling with the 
elements, as if heaven warred upon the audacious act, (for well do I 
remember it,) the fatal messenger was sent off, who carried the selected 
resolution to Texas. The act was done : Texas was admitted : all the 
consequences of admission were incurred, and especially that which Mr. 
De Bocanegra (the Mexican minister) had denounced, and which our 
secretary had accepted — war." History, Mr. B. said, would write him 
(Mr. C.) down the author of that calamity just so certainly as it had 
made Lord North the cause of the war of the revolution. 

Mr. Benton said : " He now sets up for the character of pacificator ; 
with what justice, let the further fact proclaim which I now expose." 
He said there were, in the summer of 1844, three hundred newspapers 
in the pay of the department of state, which spoke the sentiments of 
that department, and denounced as traitors all who were for peaceable 
annexation by settling, at the same time, the boundary line of Texas 
with Mexico. Those papers acted under instruction ; in proof of which, 
he read from a letter as follows : 

"As the conductor of a public journal here, he has requested me to 
answer it, (your letter,) which request I comply with readily. * • * 
With regard to the course of your paper, you can take the tone of tho 



844 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

administration from the ••*♦*. I think, however, and would 
recommend that you would confine yourself to attacks upon Benton, 
showing that he has allied himself with the whigs on the Texas question. 
Quote Jackson's letter on Texas, where he denounces all those as 
traitors to the country who oppose the treaty. Apply it to Benton. 
Proclaim that Benton, by attacking Mr. Tyler and his friends, and 
driving them from the party, is aiding the election of Mr. Clay ; and 
charge him with doing this to defeat Mr, Polk, and insure himself the 
succession in 1848; and claim that full justice be done to the acts and 
motives of John Tyler by the leaders. Harp upon these strings. Do 
not propose the union : ' it is the business of the democrats to do this, 
and arrange it to our perfect satisfaction.' I quote here from our lead- 
ing friend at the south. Such is the course which I recommend, and 
which you can pursue, or not, according to your real attachment to the 
administration. * * * Look out for my leader of to-morrow as an 
indication, and regard this letter as of the most strict and inviolate 
confidence of character." 

Mr. Calhoun disclaimed the authorship of this letter. Mr. Benton 
said it was the work of one of the organs of the administration, not 
*' John Jones," and the instruction had been followed by three hundred 
newspapers in the pay of the department of state. 

Mr. Calhoun defended the treaty of 1819, his course upon the ques- 
tion of the annexation of Texas, and his opinion that no war had been 
necessary. It might have been avoided, even after the battles of May, 
by ordering a provisional army to be raised for the protection of our 
territory. By this means we could have secured the Rio Grande, and 
been saved the expense of an invading war. In regard to annexation, 
he said, among other things, that it had been his determination to 
carry it through, and he had succeeded. It was one of the proudest 
acts of his life, and the senator from Missouri could not deprive him of 
the merit of being the author of that great act. If the government had 
acted afterwards with common prudence, Mexico and ourselves would 
have been this day good friends. Mr. C. said the settlement of the 
Oregon question previous to the commencement of hostilities with Mex- 
ico, was one of the most fortunate events for this country that had 
ever occurred. Had it not been settled before the conflict took place, 
there would probably have been no settlement of it. 

Mr. Clayton, in relation to the commencement of the war, gave the 
following testimony : During the debate on the Oregon question, in 
February, 1846 he had learned from sources upon which he could rely, 
that our government had ordered Gen. Taylor to break up his encampment 
at Corpus Christi aud march to the Rio Grande. The instant he heard 



WAR WITH MEXICC 845 

it — thfc public having no means of knowing tbe fact — he was alarmed at 
the apprehension of a war with Mexico ; and it was true, as Mr. Cal- 
houn had said, that he had, in a confidential private conversation, in 
the senate chamber, given him the information, and had told him, he 
believed, that, unless he, (Mr. Calhoun,) or some other influential gen- 
tleman should interpose to arrest the tendency of things arising from 
that order, we should be plunged into a war. At the same time there 
was danger of a war with England, which there was great anxiety to 
avert. Mr. Calhoun, on receiving the information, exclaimed : " It 
cannot be so ! It is impossible !" just as the senator had related it in 
this debate ; and asked what could be done. Mr. Clayton said that he, 
as a whig, could effect nothing • and unless Mr. Calhoun and his friends, 
or some other division of gentlemen on the other side of the chamber, 
should move in the matter, the whigs would be powerless. " The hon- 
orable gentleman," said Mr. Clayton, " was at that time, as he has 
properly stated, devoted to the same great object which, I confess, ab- 
sorbed my own mind and the minds of those around me — the prevention 
of a war with England ; and he declined to move, lest his usefulness 
on that great question should be in any degree contracted. In the 
course of a short time after that — " 

Mr. Calhoun : " The first communication was in January, when 
you announced the fact; and the second conversation was in February." 

Mr. Clayton : " Yes, the senator is right. Thus, Mr. President, I 
felt exonerated from all responsibility in the matter. * * * While 
the houses of congress remained in ignorance, and those who knew could not 
move, the president of the United States was ordering the army upon the 
Rio Grande, and taking a step of which the inevitable consequence proved 
to be war. * * * At the time war was declared, (announced,) I 
denounced it as the act of the president. * * * I believe that the war 
was brought on by this thing of marching the army, without any necessity, 
from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande ; done — done, too, while con- 
gress was in session, without one word being communicated, as to the 
intention of the president, to either house, or to any committee or 
member of either house of congress. Under these circumstances, Mr. 
President, the responsibility of the war will probably rest on him who 
ought to bear it." 

The action of congress upon the subject of the Mexican war, gave rise 
to a question in which an important principle was involved. Is it the 
duty of the legislature to provide the means of prosecuting a war made 
unconstitutionally, or by the exercise of usurped power ? It has been 
seen, that, disconnected from the declaration that war existed by the act 
of Mexico, bills to furnish supplies of men and money had received an 



846 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

almost unanimous vote. The whig members, generally, while piotestmg 
that the war not only was unjust, but had been made by the executive 
without constitutional authority, yet voted for the means to help the 
executive carry his purposes into eflFect ; justifying their votes on the 
general principle, that, in what manner, or for what purpose soever, a 
war is begun, it is the duty of congress to furnish the aid to prosecute 
it, and hold its projector and author responsible. 

The question here naturally arises. Can the legislature while it fur- 
nishes the aid, avoid the responsibility ? The legislative and executive 
branches of the government are designed to hold checks upon each other. 
Can either then be justified in refusing to interpose its constitutional 
power to arrest or to prevent usurpation by the other ? The people 
who have to bear the burdens of war, have very properly intrusted the 
war power to their representatives. Does not then the representative 
violate his trust when he withholds the exercise of his power for the 
purposes for which it was conferred ? Let the doctrine prevail univer- 
sally, that, if, by his ingenuity, an executive can only commence a war 
without the knowledge and consent of the representatives of the people, 
it is their duty to sustain and aid him in the measure, and what would 
be the consequence ? Would not the practical effect of such a doctrine 
be to defeat the purpose of the constitution, and convert the government 
into a military despotism ? 

Mr. Corwin, senator from Ohio, who stood almost alone in the senate on 
this question, vindicated his position in a speech of acknowledged ability. 
He said : " While the American president can command the army, thank 
God I can command the purse. While the president, under the penalty 
of death, can command your officers to proceed, I can tell them to come 
back for supplies, as he may. He shall have no funds from me in the 
prosecution of such a war. That I conceive to be the duty of a senator. 
I am not mistaken in that. If it is my duty to grant whatever the pre- 
sident demands, for what am I here ? Have I no will upon the subject ? 
Is it not placed at my discretion, understanding, and judgment ? Have 
an American senate and house of representatives nothing to do but to obey 
the bidding of the president, as the mercenary army he commands is 
compelled to obey under penalty of death ? No ! your senate and house 
of representatives were never elected for such purpose as that. They 
have been modeled on the good old plan of English liberty, and are 
intended to represent the English house of commons, who curbed the 
proud power of the kiug in olden time, by withholding supplies if they 
did not approve the war. * * * While Charles could command the 
army, he might control the parliament ; and because he would not give 
up that command, our Puritan ancestors laid his head upon the block. 
How did it fare with others ? 



WAR WITH MEXICO. 847 

'* It was on this very proposition of controlling the executive power 
of England by withholding the money supplies, that the house of Orange 
■iame in ; and by their accession to the throne commenced a new epoch 
in the history of England, distinguishing it from the old reign of the 
Tudors and Plantagenets and those who preceded it. Then it was that 
parliament specified the purpose of appropriation; and since 1688, it 
has been impossible for a king of England to involve the people of Eng- 
land in a war, which your president, under your republican institutions, 
and with your republican constitution, has yet managed to do. Here 
you stand powerless. He commands this army, and you must not with- 
hold their supplies. He involves your country in wasteful and exter- 
minating war against a nation with whom we have no cause of complaint ; 
but congress may say nothing !" 

In a letter to a friend, he subsequently wrote : " I differed from all 
the leading whigs of the senate, and saw plainly that they all were, to 
some extent, bound to turn, if they could, the current of public opinion 
against me. They all agreed with me, that the war was unjust on our 
part; that, if properly begun, (which none of them admitted,) we had 
already sufficiently chastised Mexico, and that the further prosecution 
of it was wanton waste of both blood and treasure ; yet they would not 
undertake to stop it. They said the president alone was responsible. I 
thought we who aided him, or furnished him means, must be in the 
judgment of reason and conscience, equally responsible, equally guilty, 
with him." 

In the discussion of the war question, a theory was advanced some- 
what different from that of the great body of either of the political par- 
ties in congress. Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, pronounced the doctrine, 
that congress has, under the constitution, the war making power ^ a 
fallacy. The whigs, assuming this doctrine, inferred that the president 
had begun the war with Mexico, and had begun it unconstitutionally ; 
and that congress had the right to prescribe, limit, and determine the 
objects and purposes of the war. Mr. R. considered the principle, with 
all its deductions, false. He held that cotigresshad the power to declare 
and begin war ; but the hostilities which had preceded the declaration of 
war, or what was the same thing, the declaration that war existed^ did not 
constitute war. To prove this, he referred to the frequent collisions on 
the sea between our vessels and those of England and France, and also 
to the Caroline affair ; neither of which had been acts of war. This was 
evident from the fact that France had long plundered our commerce, and 
many bloody battles had taken place on the sea, and many ships of war 
had been captured, yet war did not exist. If the two countries had been 
in a state of war, we could have had no lawful claims for the spoliation 



8t(|8 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of our commerce. These claims could rest only on the ground that there 
was no war with France. 

But he said hia friends on the other side turned round, and pushed 
the war clause of the constitution far beyond its meaning, and contended 
that congress had not only the war declaring^ but the war making 
power. 

Mr. R. then argued, that there was a difference between declaring and 
•making war ; the one putting a country in a state of war ; the other 
conducting it. The debates in the convention of the framera of the con- 
stitution, he said, showed that to make war, was understood to be to 
conduct it. The word " make," which had been inserted, was afterward 
struck out, and " declare" inserted, with the intention, it was presumed, 
of giving to congress the power only of declaring war, and leaving tho 
power to make or conduct it entirely with the president. But congress 
had omnipotent power over the supplies, and might refuse to vote a dol- 
lar for the support of a war. Or, it might vote for supplies, with the 
condition, that they be used onlv to withdraw our troops from Mexico 
to this side of the Rio Grande. Although the president was intrusted 
with the war making power, he was not beyond responsibility. For the 
abuse of his power, he was liable to impeachment. Let it be admitted 
that the war making power was in congress. Those who so affirm speak 
of it as a power independent of the president, by which he was to be con- 
trolled. But was it so ? He had, as parties stood, an absolute veto 
power, and could arrest any bill. Hence, that congress could do any- 
thing concerning the war, was a delusion. But concede to congress such 
power, and it would be made the commander-in-chief of the army and 
navy, and be invested with the treaty making power. Mr. R. laid down 
this proposition : ** Our fathers vested the war making power in the pre- 
sident, the war continuing power in congress (by the supplies) and the 
president, and the war ending or peace making power in the president 
and senate : although, by its power over the supplies, congress might, 
incidentally, also, force the termination of the war." 

Gen. Scott, in the progress of his invasion, reached the Mexican capi- 
tal in August, 1847, where he concluded an armistice with Santa Anna, 
with a view to a negotiation of peace, our minister, Nicholas P. Trist^ 
having the requisite power for that purpose. Failing to agree upon the 
terms of a treaty, and the two generals charging each other with a viola- 
tion of certain articles of the armistice, hostilities were recommenced early 
in September, and were continued until the following winter, when peace 
was restored between the two countries. A treaty was concluded in 
February, 1848. 

By the terras of this treaty, the Rio Grande was established as tho 



THE OREGON QUESTION. 849 

boundary, and New Mexico and Upper California were ceded to the 
United States ; in consideration of which, the United States were to pay 
to Mexico fifteen millions of dollars, and to discharge the deferred claims 
of our citizens upon Mexico. 



CHAPTER LXVIII. 

THE OREGON QUESTION. 

Soon after the close of the session of congress in 1844, a negotiation 
was commenced at Washington, between the secretary of state, and the 
British minister, (Pakenham,) relative to the rights of their respective 
nations in Oregon. The administration having repeatedly expressed the 
determination to maintain our claim to the whole of Oregon, and to 
have " the whole or none," which was understood to mean, that the full 
extent of our claim would be enforced, if necessary, by a resort to arms, 
the result of the negotiation was awaited with much anxiety. More 
than a year passed, and the public mind was still uninformed of the 
state of the negotiation. It was rumored, indeed, that our government 
had offered to the British minister to treat on the parallel of the 49th 
degree as the boundary. The " Union," the official paper, contradicted 
the rumor, October 6, 1845, and reasserted the purpose of the adminis- 
tration to insist on " the whole of Oregon, or none," as " the only alter- 
native." It said : " When that word goes forth from the constituted 
authorities of the nation, ' Our right to Oregon is clear and unquestion- 
able,' who doubts that it will go the whole length and breadth of the 
land, and that it will be hailed as it goes, by the democratic party, with 
one unanimous amen ! And what then ? We answer this, then — the 
democracy of this country will stand to its word. It will not flinch." 

The persistence in the claim to the whole territory, which, it was 
believed, Great Britain would not relinquish, excited, in many minds, 
apprehensions of war. Some of the opposition considered it as the 
" trump card of Mr. Polk's second candidacy." " Mr. Polk and his 
advisers," it was said, " to gain western votes and western influence, 
were perfectly willing to involve the country in war." It was predicted 
that he " would recommend, in his next message, taking possession of 
all Oregon ; and England would quietly wait the action of congress. 
Should the recommendation be carried out, immediate war would be 

54 



850 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

inevitable. But congress would commit no such folly. They know 
now, which they did not last winter, that to vote for such a measure is to 
vote for war, and not a party vote to Buncombe.'' 

The declaration of the official paper, (The Union,) and other leading 
administration journals, in favor of taking possession of the whole ter- 
ritory, was enforced by quoting a sentiment ascribed to Gen. Jackson : 
'* No compromise but at the cannon's mouth !" Although public senti- 
ment appeared to be generally in favor of the justice of our claim to 
the whole territory, a large portion of the democratic press, as well as 
many prominent men of the administration party, were not in favor of 
insisting on the whole territory, at the hazard of war. Taking posses- 
sion of the territory, and exercising exclusive jurisdiction over it, would 
have been a direct violation of the treaty which required the year's 
notice to be given in order to terminate the joint occupancy ; and a 
law to carry into effect the proposed measure could scarcely have failed 
to provoke a war. There were those who urged the giving of the 
notice as a means of hastening a settlement of the controversy. Others 
among whom was Mr. Calhoun, were in favor of a compromise. Thi.- 
had been proposed by Mr. Benton, in 1828, who, in executive session 
introduced resolutions, declaring it " not expedient to treat any longer 
with Great Britain upon the basis of a joint occupation of Oregon ; 
but " expedient to treat upon the basis of a separation of interests, and 
the establishment of the forty-ninth degree of north latitude as a 
permanent boundary." 

The president's message, which had been awaited with much anxiety, 
did not meet the expectations of those who had formed their opinions 
from the declarations of the advocates of " the whole or none" policy. 
Mr. Polk recapitulated briefly the history of the controversy. He 
adverted to the negotiations of 1518, 1824, and 1826; the two first 
under the administration of Mr. Monroe, and the last under that of Mr 
Adams; that of 1818 having resulted in the convention providing for 
the joint occupancy; that of 1824 having been productive of no result; 
and that of 1826 having resulted in the convention of 1827, by which 
the joint occupancy was continued for an indefinite period, and until 
the convention should be annulled ; which could be done by either party 
after the expiration of the ten years of joint occupation from October, 
1818, by giving the other twelve months' previous notice to that effect. 

In former attempts at adjustment, the United States had offered the 
parallel of the forty-ninth degree, with the free navigation of the Colum- 
bia river south of that degree. Great Britain had proposed the forty- 
ninth degree from the Rocky mountains to its intersection with the 
north-easternmost branch of that river, and thence down the channel of 



THE OREGON QUESTION. 851 

the same to the sea, with a small detached territory north of the Colum- 
bia. But neither party had accepted the proposition of the other. In 
October, 1843, our minister in London was authorized to repeat tho 
offers of 1818 and 1826; and in 1844, after the negotiation had been 
transferred to Washington during the administration of Mr. Tyler, the 
British minister proposed the same line as that before offered by that 
government; the navigation to be free to both parties; and a detached 
territory north of the river being also again offered, with the privilege, 
in addition, of the free use of all the ports south of latitude forty-nine. 
This proposition having been rejected by our government, no other was 
made by the British plenipotentiary. 

The president said, that, although he believed the British pretensions 
to any portion of the Oregon territory could not be maintained upon 
any principle of public law recognized by nations, he had in deference to 
what had been done by two of his predecessors, offered to divide on the 
forty-ninth degree, but without conceding to Great Britain the free navi- 
gation of the Columbia. This proposition having been rejected, it bad 
been withdrawn, and our title to the whole territory asserted. It now 
became the duty of congress to consider what measure to adopt for the 
security and protection of our citizens in that country, and the mainte- 
nance of our title; taking care not to violate the treaty of 1827, which 
was still in force. He recommended that the notice of the discontinu- 
ance of the joint occupancy should be given ; and that the protection of 
our laws should be extended over our citizens in Oregon, as Great Bri- 
tain had ex-tended her laws and jurisdiction over her subjects in that 
territory. 

Negotiation having been again abandoned, and movements being 
on foot in England which were regarded as preparations for war, another 
conflict with that power, more or less remote, began to be seriously 
apprehended. The president's message was soon followed by a variety 
of propositions in congress. In the senate, Mr. Atchison introduced 
resolutions suggesting the organization of a government for Oregon, and 
the arming and equipping of the militia of that territory. Mr. Cass 
offered resolutions proposing preparations for war. Mr. Hannegan 
introduced resolutions asserting our title to all Oregon, and declaring 
" the surrender of any portion of it an abandonment of the honor, 
character, and best interests of the American people." Mr. Allen pro- 
posed a notice to terminate the joint occupancy. Mr. Calhoun offered 
a series ^f resolutions as an amendment to Hannegan's, declaring that, 
however clear our title might be to the whole of that territory, there did 
exist, and had long existed, conflicting claims on the part of Great Bri- 
tain ; and that the president, in renewing the offer to compromise on the 



852 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

49th degree, did not " abandon the honor, character, and best interests 
of the American people." 

Mr. Calhoun considered Mr. Hannegan's resolutions as reflecting, by 
implication, upon the president for having oflfered to compromise on the 
line of the forty-ninth degree. He objected to the resolutions, that if 
they should be adopted, the question could only be settled by force of 
arms. He was in favor of a pacific course — of an adjustment, if pos- 
sible, by negotiation. 

Mr. Hanuegan said he had no intention of casting a censure upon the 
oresident. The aspect of things had changed since the proposition had 
Deen made to divide at the 49th parallel. He, too, was for peace ; but 
wheu peace became degrading and dishonorable, a war even of extermi- 
nation would be preferable. And for one, representing the people ho 
did, he never would vote for any treaty yielding an inch of ground below 
54 degrees and 40 minutes north. 

In the house, Mr. Winthrop offered resolutions, declaring it a dishonor 
to the age, and discreditable to both nations, to be drawn into war, and 
ihat it was due to the principles of civilization and Christianity, that a 
resort be had to arbitration, Mr. Douglas proposed to resolve, that the 
subject was not open to compromise, so as to surrender any part of the 
territory; and that the question of title should not be left to arbitration. 

About this time there appeared a singular state of parties in congress. 
Mr. Calhoun occupied the same position as in 1843, when he was in 
favor of a " masterly inactivity;" that is, he was for leaving the terri- 
tory quietly to fall into the arms of the union, as it naturally would, at 
no very distant day. Mr. Cass's resolutions were forthwith unani- 
mously adopted by the senate. This was regarded as an indirect appro- 
val of the views of the president ; and yet, upon authority deemed reli- 
able, it was believed that the administration desired that the question 
should be settled by negotiation. Both Hannegan's and Calhoun's 
resolutions were considered ill-advised ; virtually taking the question 
out of the hands of the administration, who, it was said, had managed 
it satisfactorily to the people. The adoption of Mr. Hannegan's reso- 
lutions would, it was apprehended, have the effect of precluding all 
future efforts at negotiation. Mr. Calhoun's resolutions were deemed 
objectionable, as they would " create an impression that a portion of the 
democratic party were about to give the whigs the coveted opportunity 
to defeat the honorable and peaceable settlement of the controversy by 
the present administration." 

A very unexpected course was taken by a portion of the whigs. In 
the house, on the 2d of January, 1846, Mr. Cunningham, of Ohio, a 
democrat, asked leave to introduce a resolution, which, after stating in a 



THE o:.2GON quest:dn. 853 

preamble, that the rejectiou, by Great Britian, of the liberal proposition 
of the president had terminated all negotiations on the Oregon question I 
that her extraordinary demands had made it manifest that no satisfac- 
tory compromise could be effected ; that our title to all the country 
between the parallels of 42 degrees, and 54 degrees and 40 minutes north 
latitude, and west of the Rocky Mountains, was clear and unquestion- 
able ; and that no portion of it could be honorably surrendered, 
declared it to be " the imperative duty of congress to adopt imme- 
diately such measures as would fully protect our citizens who now do, 
or may hereafter inhabit that country, and effectually maintain our just 
title to the whole of the country of the Oregon." 

Objection having been made to the introduction of the resolution, the 
question was taken on a motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of 
the immediate reception of the resolution, when, the first name called 
being that of Mr. Adams, a sensation was produced in the house by his 
voting aye. Other whigs also voted in the affirmative. The motion to 
suspend, however, was lost. 

Mr. Douglas had previously reported a bill for extending the laws of 
the United States over the territorj' of Oregon; and for the protection 
of its inhabitants; which having been made the special order for a future 
day, Mr. Haralson, from the committee on military affairs, reported a 
bill for the organization of two regiments of riflemen, and. moved that it 
be made a special order, assigning as a reason, that it had immediate 
connection with the object of the Oregon territorial bill of Mr. Doug- 
las. Upon this motion a debate arose, in which Mr. Adams took a 
prominent part, and excited much surprise and a deep sensation. 

Mr. Adams was against the bill as unnecessary, both because a simi- 
lar bill for one regiment was in progress in the senate, and because he 
saw " no danger of war at this time." If any danger of war was appre- 
hended, the first measure to be taken ought to be to give notice to Great 
Britain that we meant to terminate the joint occupancy. Yet it was 
not a joint occupancy ; and he had been surprised at the language of 
some gentlemen on the subject. The treaty acknowledged no occupa- 
tion of the territory by either party ; it was a mere commercial conven- 
tion for free navigation, but did not admit the occupation, by either 
party, of an inch of territory by the other. Twelve months after such 
notice should have been given, the right would accrue to us to occupy 
any part of the territory. To the bill which had passed at the last 
session, he had moved a section, requiring such notice to be given; but 
the bill had been lost in the senate. He had then declared, and he now- 
declared himself ready to give such notice. He hoped it would be given, 
and followed by a real occupation of the ivhole territory. [This declara • 



854 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

tion caused great sensation, and some demonstrations of applause, which 
was promptly arrested by the speaker.] Mr. Douglas having said there 
appeared to be a game playing there, Mr. Adams said that remark was 
incomprehensible to him ; but he confessed he was surprised to hear 
that the committee on foreign affairs would not report such notice to 
the house. 

Mr. Ingersoll said he knew of no member of the committee who had 
said so. Mr. Douglas said he had said so, because he had heard that 
such was their determination. 

Mr. Adams said, while they were talking about regiments of riflemen, 
stockade forts, &c., Great Britain was arming her steam-vessels, equip- 
ping her frigates and line-of-battle ships, and sending over her troops to 
be ready. Said he : '■'■ I ivould press a resolution giving the notice this 
PAY, if I hoped that a majority of the house could be obtained to effect 
that measure." He said, while the convention remained in force, he 
would vote for no increase of the army or navy. He hoped, if the bill 
should be made the order of the day for Tuesday, that it would be 
arranged by gentlemen who managed the business of the house, that the 
question of giving notice should come up on the same day, and be first 
taken up. It was mere wasting time, and whistling to the wind, to talk 
about military force, U!.!/!! our conscience was clear from the obligation 
of the convention. And he said it did not follow that, if notice was 
given, there must be war, nor even that we should then take possession. 
It would only be saying to Great Britain : After negotiating twenty 
years about this matter, we do not choose to negotiate any longer. We 
shall take possession of what is our own, and then, if to settle the ques- 
tion of what is our own, you wish to negotiate, we will negotiate as long 
as you please. We may negotiate after we take possession. (Much 
laughter.) This is the military way of doing business. (Increased 
merriment.) 

The contrast between the indifference of the Calhoun party in con- 
gress on the Oregon question, and their zeal the year before for the ac- 
quisition of Texas, even at the cost of war, did not escape the notice ot 
Mr. Adams. He repeated that the notice did not necessarily draw after 
it a war ; and if Great Britain chose to take it as an act of hostility on 
our part, and commence a war, he hoped there might be but one party. 
The war would then have less of those extraordinary terrors which his 
friend from South Carolina, (Mr. Holmes,) had just now discovered, 
notwithstanding the extreme military propensities which he manifested 
on that floor last year. The gentleman was a most valiant man when 
Texas was in question. "But," said Mr. A., " I shall draw no com- 
parisons as to what we witnessed then, and what we see now ; but this I 



THE OREGON QtrESTION. 856 

will say, that I hope if war shall come — which God forh'd, and of 
which I entertain no fears at all — the whole country will havt but one 
heart, and but one united hand. And of this I am very sure, that, in 
that case, Great Britain will no longer occupy Oregon, nor any thing 
else north of Canada line. [Great sensation, and incipient indica- 
tions of applause.] But if you will agree to give notice, strong as is 
my horror of wax and of all military establishments, if there should 
then be the breath of life in me, I hope I shall be willing to go as far 
as any in making any sacrifice to render that war succes sful and 
glorious." 

Mr. Ingersoll, the next day, (January 3,) made some explanation in 
regard to the giving notice. It had been proposed at the last session ; 
and the resolution had been referred to the committee on foreign af- 
fairs, who had reported against the proposition ; but it should be borne 
in mind that the then president was against it, while the present in- 
cumbent had expressed a desire that the notice should be given. Mr. 
I. followed in the wake of Mr. Adams. He concurred in the remark 
made by the lattei, that there was no such thing as a joint occupation 
by the treaty. The term " joint occupation" was not to be found in the 
convention of 1818 at all. It had, in 1828, in a protocol of Mr. Gallatin 
with the British minister, stolen into the negotiation. The admission 
of these words was a monstrous concession on our part to the claims of 
the British government. 

Mr. Preston King, of New York, said the chairman of the committee 
on territories had informed the house, that a game had been playing 
there ; and Mr. K. read from the London Times an article predicting 
threatening language from the president, the reappearance of Mr. Cal- 
houn in the senate, a check to be then given in that body to the war 
spirit, and the administration thus saved from the consequences of its 
own violence. 

Mr. Douglas explained. By the '* game playing in the house," he 
had not had reference to any thing in an English paper ; but to the 
disposition manifested to prevent a speedy action on the Oregon bill, 
by getting up feelings of jealousy between the standing committees as 
to their respective jurisdictions, in order to procrastinate action. 

Mr. King resumed. The administration had erred in offering to 
settle by the 49th parallel. It had been said that the administration 
must have felt sure that the offer would have been rejected, or it would 
not have been made. The subject had been in the charge of diplomacy 
long enough; and he now rejoiced to learn from the message that ne- 
gotiation was at an end. 

Mr. Winthrop dissented from the views of those who had preceded him. 



S56 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had said that 
they had, at a former session, voted for giving the notice for termi- 
Ddting the convent'.on. He, on the jther hard, had voied 'igairdt it, 
and would again. He had offered, a few days ago, a series of resolu- 
tions, which might not soon emerge from the pile of matter under which 
they were buried on the table. Stormy debates upon peace and war 
had an injurious influence; and his purpose in introducing his resolu- 
tions was to express some plain and precise opinions entertained by 
himself and many others in regard to the present critical state of our 
foreign relations. All agreed that we had rights in Oregon ; and that, 
if these rights were to be maintained by war, it must bo done with all 
the vigor we possessed. He spurned the notion that patriotism could 
only be manifested by plunging the nation into war, or that the love of 
one's country could only be measured by his hatred to any other 
country. 

Mr. W. did not expect to escape reproach from his opponents for the 
expression of his opinions ; and there were those of his own party from 
whom he might expect them. It had been said ihjc it was not good 
party policy to avow such doctrines; that it gave the friends of the 
administration occasion to brand the whigs as a peace party ^ and that 
the only course for the minority to pursue, was to bring about their 
readiness for war with those that bragged loudest. Now, if an oppo- 
nent of the administration were willing to make a mere party instru- 
ment of this Oregon negotiation, he might retort upon the majority 
by asking. Where was the heroic determination of the executive to vin- 
dicate our title to " ihe whole of Oregon — the whole or none" — when a 
deliberate offer of more than five degrees of latitude had recently been 
made to Great Britain ? and that, too, when the president and secretary 
of state told us that our right to the whole was clear and unquestion- 
able ! For himself, he repudiated all idea of party obligations or party 
views in connection with this question. He scorned tlie suggestion that 
the peace of his country was to be regarded as a mere pawn on the 
political chess-board, to be periled for mere party triumph. There had 
been enough of the mischief of mingling such questions with party poli- 
tics. It had been openly avowed elsewhere, and repeated in this house 
yesterday by the member from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) that Oregon 
and Texas had been born and cradled together in the Baltimore con 
vention ; that they were the twin offspring of that political conclave ; 
and in that avowal might be found the whole explanation of the difficul- 
ties and dangers with which the question was now attended. 

Mr. W. said he honored the administration for whatever spirit of 
conciliation, compromise and peace they had manifested. If for uuy 



THE OREGON QUESTION, 857 

thing he would reproach or taunt them, it was for their abandonment 
of that spirit. If any one desired to brand him, on this account, as a 
member of a peace party, he bared his bosom to receive the brand, and 
was willing to take its first and deepest impression, while the iron was 
sharpest and hottest. If there was any shame in such a brand, he glo- 
ried in his shame. But who was willing to bear the brand of being a 
member of the war party ? Who would submit to have that Cain-mark 
stamped upon his brow ? He thanked Heaven that all men, on all 
sides, had thus far refused to wear it. All had avowed themselves in 
fi'vor of peace ; " only it must be an honorable peace." This was the 
stereotyped phrase of the day. The question was, what was an honor- 
able peace ? Peace was in its nature honorable ; war, in its proper 
character, was disgraceful. Was there any thing in the Oregon con- 
troversy, as it then stood, which furnished an exception to these general 
principles ? any thing which would render a pacific policy discreditable, 
or which would invest war with any degree of true honor ? He denied 
it altogether. 

Mr. W. then proceeded to the defense of the propositions of his reso- 
lutions. In the course of his speech, he commented severely on a 
remark by Mr. King, that the administration, in making the oflFer of the 
49th parallel, did it with the understanding that it would be rejected. 
[Mr. K. said he heard it, and believed it to be so.] Said Mr. Winthrop: 
" There is an admission to which I wish to call the solemn attention of 
the house and of the country. I trust in Heaven that the honorable 
member is mistaken. I trust, for the honor of the country, that the 
chairman of the committee on foreign afi'airs will obtain official authority 
to contradict this statement." [Mr. Ingersoll said he would not wait for 
authority. He denied it unqualifiedly. Mr. King said his authority 
was public rumor, and he believed it to be correct.] Mr. Winthrop : 
" It can not be correct. What sort of an administration are you sup- 
porting if you can believe them to have been guilty of such gross dupli- 
city in the face of the world, in order to furnish themselves with a pre- 
text for war ? I would not have heard their enemy suggest such an 
idea." 

Mr. W. intimated that there was yet hope of being able to settle the 
question by negotiation. But if no compromise which the United States 
ought to accept can be effected, was there then no resort but war ? 
Yes ; there was still another easy and obvious mode of averting that 
fearful alternative. He meant arbitration ; a resort so reasonable, so 
just, so conformable to the principle which governed us in our daily 
domestic affairs, so conformable to the spirit of civilization and Chris- 
tianity, that no man would venture to say any thing against it in the 



858 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

abstract. But it was said we could find no impartial arbiter. So tlien^ 
" our title," said Mr. W., " is so clear and indisputable, that we can find 
nobody in the wide world impartial enough to give it a fair considera- 
tion !" He said he would vote for any measures necessary for the 
defense of the country. But he insisted that the peace of the country 
and the honor of the country were still compatible with each other. 
There had been omens of peace in the other end of the capitol, if none 
in this. But if war should come, the administration must take the 
responsibility, for all its guilt and all its disgrace. 

The debate, in which several other gentlemen participated, took place 
on Saturday, Jaiiuary 3, 1846. On Monday, the 5th, Mr. Ingersoll, 
from the committee on foreign relations, reported a joint resolution, 
requiring the president forthwith to cause notice to be given to the gov- 
ernment of Great Britain, that the convention of 1827 should he annul- 
led and abrogated in twelve months. 

Mr. Garret Davis, of Kentucky, in behalf of the minority of the com- 
,mitte, made a report, in which the question was raised, whether the 
house, which is, by the constitution, invested with no executive functions, 
could be properly united with the president and senate, in giving this 
notice. If the notice could be given without the concurrence of the 
house, would not such an interference be beyond the scope of its powers ? 
The house had had no agency in the formation of this convention with 
England : it was a treaty made properly, and that could only be made 
by the president and the senate. The treaty making power might at 
any time, with the consent of Great Britain, modify it, as had once been 
done ; and the same power could put an end to it. Without expressing 
an opinion whether the notice ought or ought not to be given, and as the 
solution of that question was constitutionally for the president, or for 
him acting with the senate, the house ought to be content to leave him 
to his proper judgment, discretion, and responsibility ; and they conclude 
with a resolution to that effect. 

On the motion of Mr. Ingersoll to make his resolution the special 
order for the first Monday of February, 

Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, who was regarded as the leader of the aboli- 
tion party in the house, quite as unexpectedly as Mr. Adams had done, 
declared himself in favor of terminating the convention. He had, in a 
former congress, been opposed to the proposition ; but the aspect of 
things had changed. The slave power of the union had gained largely 
by the annexation of Texas. The compromises of the constitution had 
been virtually done away ; and the principle of territorial extension had 
been grafted on the government, and, by conseqiience, forced upon the 
northern states, in self-defense. He differed in opinion from the repre- 



THE OREGON QUESTION. 859 

sentatives from Massachusetts. He believed if we took the whole of 
Oregon, we should have war. He preferred war, with all its miseries, 
to euduriug the supremacy of the slavocratic oligarchy. Texas had beeu 
admitted, and its weight must be counterbalanced. But the northern 
democracy would now find their southern democratic brethren deserting 
them. Their southern friends in every part of this hall, were imploring 
whiga and democrats to save them from this dread policy, which strikes 
a death blow to the value of slave property. A master spirit of the 
south (Calhoun) had left his retirement, and taken his position in the 
other end of the capitol, with the avowed purpose of defeating the very 
policy (territorial extension) which occupied his whole intellect and 
desires only a year ago. Mr. Gr. assured northern democrats that if the 
measure (giving notice) should be carried out by congress, Mr. Polk 
would save the south from their apprehensions of war ; he would sur- 
render all of Oregon north of the 49th degree, rather than hazard the 
dangers of a war ; and thus the north would be betrayed. 

Mr. M'Dowell, of Ohio, hoped not a man who had advocated the 
annexation of Texas, would now falter in the settlement of the Oregon 
controversy. Both measures had been avowed by the Baltimore conven- 
tion, and had equal claims to support. The negotiation was now at an 
end ; and he trusted that not a representative from the Mississippi 
valley ever would consent that the offer of the 49th degree should be 
accepted and ratified by the government. In the presence of the house, 
and of the nation, and before God, the king of nations, he solemnly pro- 
tested against any more offers to buy a peace. Negotiation ! He would 
rather cover the soil of Oregon with the corpses of our countrymen, and 
wet it with their life-blood, than surrender an inch of it to Great Britain, 
and thereby seal the national disgrace. 

Mr. Ehett, of South Carolina, was opposed to giving notice. To 
carry into effect our laws over the whole territory after notice given, it 
would be necessary forcibly to eject the British from some thirty forts; 
and war would probably result. The giving of the notice would throw 
upon us the onus of action, and the necessity of maintaining our rights by 
force. He did not believe Oregon would be gained by war ; it would 
rather be the means of our losing it. The prolongation of the conven- 
tion would do us no injury. We should gain by time. To put an end 
to it, would bring us into collision with the Hudson Bay company and 
Great Britain. He was not afraid of a war with that power ; but he was 
opposed to any war which bore a semblance of a war of conquest. Ht 
did not think the proposed action was demanded by national honor. 1 
was not honor to take fire at negotiation, and jeopard the national peace 
prosperity, and happiness for shadows. 



860 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Besides Mr. Adams and Mr. Giddings, several whigs took an equally 
decided stand in favor of the resolution of Mr. Ingersoll for terminating 
the convontion of 1827. As ct ideate of the grent weight attached to 
thj juogmCiit a-jd opinicns ci' M;. Auam?, it was stated thr.c, imme- 
diately after the publication of his speech, " the apprehensions of a war 
were renewed ; stocks fell instantly ; markets were agitated ; and the 
week closed under gloomy forebodings. The assurances of the venerable 
gentleman, that he apprehended no war, seemed to weigh very little 
when placed in the scale to balance the tenor of the course he chalked 
out for the country." It was believed also that his speech was instru- 
mental in hastening the report of the committee on foreign relations. 

The message of the president, and the language of the official paper, 
produced no small excitement in England. The British press spoke out 
with spirit for maintaining their claims and the honor of the nation. 
The mollification, by the Union, of its "whole or none," " war or no war" 
article, the general tone of the American press, and a speech of Daniel 
Webster at Boston, denouncing the idea of a war with England, served 
essentially to abate the excitement abroad. 

In this country, apprehensions were considerably allayed by the post- 
ponement, in the senate, on the 12th of January, of the consideration of 
the "notice" resolutions, by a vote of 32 to 18, until the 1 0th of Feb- 
ruary. Also resolutions by Mr. Allen against the non-interference of 
European powers with the political affairs of the independent nations of 
America ; or against establishing new colonies upon this continent, were 
laid upon the table, 28 to 23 ; the Calhoun senators voting with the 
whigs. 

On the 14th of January, Mr. Crittenden, of the senate, offered resolu- 
tions for giving the noti.ce, but with a provision allowing an opportunity 
for an amicable settlement ; and the notice not to be given until after 
the close of the present session of congress. The resolutions were made 
the order of the day for the 10th of February. 

The house also manifested a disposition to deliberate upon the subject 
rather leisurely. Numerous resolutions were successively offered, and 
the debate was continued until the 9th of February, when it was closed 
by the adoption of resolutions offered by Mr. Boyd, of Kentucky, 
requiring the president to give the twelve months' notice, and permitting 
the parties to renew or pursue negotiations for an amicable settlement 
of the controversy. The vote on the resolutions was, ayes 163 ; noes, 
54. Of the 74 whig votes, 37 were for, and 37 against the notice. Of 
the democrats, 121 voted for, and 16 against. Of the native Ameri- 
cans, 5 voted for, and 1 against the notice. 

Apprehensions of war were now suddenly revived, by the publica 



THE OREGON QUESTION. 861 

tioD of the correspondence between the two governments relating to the 
Oregon question, from which it appeared, that two different propositions 
had been made, on the part of Great Britain, for arbitration, both of 
which had been rejected. The objection to the first was, that it referred 
to a friendly power or state merely .the partition or equitable division of 
the territory between the parties; thus assuming that the title of Great 
Britain to a portion was valid. The second proposition referred the 
question of the title of either power to the whole territory, subject to 
the condition, that, if the arbitrator should not deem the title to the 
whole by either party complete, there should be assigned to each a por- 
tion corresponding to the claim of each. This was rejected on the 
ground that the condition might be construed into an intimation, if not 
a direct invitation, to the arbitrator to divide the territory between the 
parties. 

On the 10th of February, the debate commenced on the several reso- 
lutions which had been made the order of the day. This debate, in 
which the most able and distinguished senators participated, continued 
more than two months. The 16th of April had been fixed on for taking 
the question. As the question of peace or war was considered as 
depending, in a great measure, on the adoption or rejection of a resolu- 
tion for giving notice of a termination of the convention of 1827, a deep 
and pervading interest was felt in the final action of the senate. The 
gallery and the avenues to it, were pre-occupied by a dense crowd for 
hours before the meeting of the senate. 

The great point of difference between the particular friends of the 
administration and its opponents on the subject of giving notice, was, 
that the former wished congress to back up the president with an unquali- 
fied resolution requiring the notice to be given ; whereas the latter 
wished the matter still left open for amicable adjustment, and the respon- 
sibility thrown upon the president of choosing or refusing to negotiate ; 
in other words, of determining the question of " peace or war." 

Before taking the question, Mr. Crittenden addressed the senate for 
about two hours, in favor of resolutions in the qualified form, as most 
likely to preserve peace. He was for leaving with the president the 
responsibility as well as the power which the constitution reposes in the 
executive for the management of negotiation. He believed the question 
would be settled amicably. The president desired the notice to aid him. 
It had been asked for as a means of peace, and he (Mr. C.) regarded it 
as such. It would be a disgrace to the age if the question should not 
be amicably settled. Before God and man, they would be responsible 
who acted upon the negotiation. Let the president, who had the power 
in his hands, look to the matter. His would be the responsibility. Le 



862 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

him act as a president of the United States — as a just man. If he 
plunged the country needlessly into a war, his would be a terrible respon- 
sibility. 

Mr. Allen then withdrew his own resolution ; and, on his motion, tho 
senate took up the resolutions passed by the house. For these Mr. John- 
son, of Maryland, then moved as a substitute, the resolutions of Mr. 
Crittenden, somewhat modified, which were adopted in committee of 
the whole, 30 to 24, and reported to the senate. Mr. Allen denounced 
the proceedings most severely, and accused the senate of dodging behind 
the president, and shrinking from responsibility. He pronounced the 
resolutions tame, timid, as manacling the president, and as producing a 
division between the two houses, and between them and the president. 
The president had told them he had done with negotiation, and wished 
the law making power to take up the subject ; but they were leaving all 
to his discretion. If he (Mr. A.) stood alone, he would vote against 
the resolution. 

Mr. Crittenden rejoined in vindication of the senate, and administered 
a sharp rebuke to the senator for his imputations. " Upon what meat 
does our Caesar feed that he has grown so great," thus to lecture sena- 
tors? The senator does not know the senate; nor does he know him- 
self, the wisest lesson any man can learn. 

Mr. Allen replied with vehemence; and the discussion descending to 
personalities, the vice-president admonished the combatants. The ques- 
tion was then taken on the third reading of the resolutions, and decided 
in the affirmative; ayes, 40; noes, 14. 

It remained for the house to concur in the resolution as amended in 
the senate. Concurrence was refused ; and an agreement was finally 
efi"ected by a committee of conference. The resolutions as reported by 
this committee, passed by a vote of 142 to 46. All who voted in the 
negative are supposed to have been democrats. 

To show the difi"erence between the resolutions as finally adopted, and 
what they were as they first passed the house, the material parts of them 
are subjoined. The resolution of Mr. Boyd, adopted by the house, 

" Resolved, That the President of the United States cause notice to 
be given to the government of Great Britain, that the convention 
(describing the same) shall be annulled and abrogated twelve months 
after giving said notice. 

" And beit further enacted, That nothing herein contained is intended 
to interfere with the right and discretion of the proper authorities of the 
two contracting parties to renew or pursue negotiations for an amicable 
settlement of the controversy respecting the Oregon territory." 

The resolutions adopted finally, after reciting the general provisions 
of the conventions of 1818 and 1827, proceed to say: 



THE OREGON QUESTION. 863 

" Witli a view, therefore, that steps be taken for the abrogation of the 
said convention of the 6th of August, 1827, in the mode prescribed in 
its 2d article, and that the attention of the governments of both coun- 
tries may be more earnestly directed to the adoption of all proper mea- 
sures for the speedy and amicable adjustment of the difficulties and dis- 
putes in relation to said territory : 

" Resolved^ &c., That the president of the United States be, and he 
is hereby authorized, at his discretion, to give to the British government 
the notice required by the said second article for the abrogation of the 
convention of the 6th of August, 1827." 

A large portion of the debate on the Oregon question in the senate, 
during this session, was a discussion of the question of title and 
boundary. The title of the United States up to the line of 54° 40' was 
supported by Messrs. Dis, Cass, Dickinson, and others ; by the first of 
these gentlemen very elaborately and ably. Mr. Benton took strong 
ground against them, contending for 49° as the true and proper line, up 
to which we had a right, but not beyond. He affirmed "that every 
American statesman of twenty and forty years ago — Mr. Jeffisrson and 
Mr. Madison in 1807; Mr. Monroe and his cabinet in 1823, offered to 
divide by 49°, leaving Frazer's river wholly to the British, and that 
because it belonged to them." He said " the people had been misled — 
grossly and widely misled — ignorantly at first, as we were bound to 
believe ; designedly now, as we painfully see. The fifty-four-forty line, 
never existed. The treaty proves it ; yet its existence is still affirmed, 
to mislead the uninformed, and to save the misleaders from the mortifi- 
cation of exposure." 

[Mr. Benton, it is believed, had once expressed the opinion, that the 
just claims of the United States extended beyond the 49th degree of 
north latitude.] 

The resolutions authorizing the notice were approved by the president 
on the 27th of April. The next day the notice was executed, and, with- 
out delay, transmitted to Mr. M'Lane, at London, to be delivered in 
person to Her Majesty Victoria. 

In the midst of apprehension and speculation on the question of peacf 
or war, the public suspense was suddenly relieved by the announcement 
of PEACE ! From documents subsequently published, it appeared, that, 
on the 6th of June, a conference took place between Mr. Buchanan and 
Mr. Pakenham, which resulted in a treaty concluded the 15th of June. 
The proposition, on the part of the British government, for the adjust- 
ment of the question, was communicated by the president to the senate 
for its advice, in advance of his own action upon it. His own opinions, 
Le said, remained as they had been expressed in his last annual message 



864 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

A motive to this previous consultation with the senate, probably was a 
desire to throw upon the senate, as far as possible, the responsibility of 
accepting a proposition for the surrender of territory south of 54 deg. 
40 min., against which he and his friends had so strongly committed 
themselves. 

The dividing line established by the treaty was on the 49th degree of 
latitude, from the Stony Mountains west to the middle of the channel 
which separates Vancouver's island from the continent; thence southerly 
through the middle of the channel and of Fuca's straits to the Pacific 
ocean : the whole of the channel and straits south of that parallel to be 
free and open to both parties; also the great northern branch of the 
Columbia river, from that pa^'allel to the main stream, and the said 
stream or river down to the ocean, were to be open to the Hudson's Bay 
company and to the subjects of Great Britain trading with the same. 
The treaty was sent to England for ratification by that government, 
where it was ratified, and ratifications were exchanged ; and was pro- 
claimed by the president on the 5th of August, 1846. 

Notwithstanding the spirit with which a large portion of the friends 
of the administration contended for " the whole or none" of Oregon, it 
is believed that few, upon calm consideration, indulged regrets that Mr. 
Polk had yielded to what was supposed to be the prevailing sentiment 
of the nation at large, and had given his oflScial sanction to the treaty. 
Much credit was awarded to Messrs. Webster, Calhoun, and Benton for 
their instrumentality in bringing about the adjustment. The emphatic 
announcement of Mr. Webster, that the United States would never con- 
sent to take less than the line of the 49th degree, and that upon this 
point men of all parties in this country were agreed, probably aided 
much in drawing from the British ministry the proposition for settle- 
ment. The early and vigorous opposition of Mr. Calhoun to the course 
of the radicals of his own party in the senate, was not without efi"ect. 
Then the great speech of Mr. Benton, at that particular juncture, when 
both governments paused to consider what course next to pursue, remov- 
ing all ground for persisting in the refusal to accept the line of the 49th 
degree, doubtless contributed much to induce Mr. Polk to submit the 
proposition to the senate. Thus, to the combined efforts of these three 
distinguished senators is the country indebted, in no small degree, for 
averting the calamity of a sanguinary war, which, there is little reason 
to doubt, would have been the consequence of an adherence, on the part 
of the executive, to his original purpose. 

The reasons upon which Mr. Benton based his concession, to Great 
Britain, of the territory beyond the 49th degree,will be found in the 
following extract from a speech delivered by him in the senate, Januar3' 
12 1843: 



THE TARIFF ACT OF 1846. 865 

" Mr. Benton said he would not restate the American title to that 
country : it had been well done, by others who had preceded him in 
debate. We would only give a little more development to two points 
— the treaties of 1803 and 1819; the former with France, by which we 
acquired Louisiana; the latter with Spain, by which we acquired all her 
rights on the north-west coast of America, north of 42 degrees. By 
the first of these treaties, we became a party to the tenth article of the 
treaty of Utrecht, between France and England ; the treaty of peace of 
1714, which terminated the wars of Queen Anne and Louis XIV, and 
settled all their differences of every kind in Europe and America, and 
undertook to prevent the recurrence of future differences between them. 
The tenth article of this treaty applied to their settlements and terri- 
tories in North America, and directed commissaries to be appointed to 
mark and define their possessions. These commissaries did their work. 
They drew a line from ocean to ocean, to separate the French and Brit- 
ish dominions, and to prevent future encroachment and collisions. This 
line began on the coast of Labrador, and followed a course slightly 
south of west to the centre of North America, leaving the British settle- 
ments of Hudson Bay to the north, and the French Canadian posses- 
sions to the south. This line took for a landmark the Lake of the 
Woods, which was then believed to be due east from the head of the 
Mississippi ; and from that point took the forty-ninth parallel of lati- 
tude indefinitely to the west. The language of the line is ' indefinitely ;'' 
and this established the northern boundary of Louisiana, and erected a 
wall beyond which future French settlements could not cross to the 
north, nor British to the south. 

"As purchasers of Louisiana, the treaty of 1803 made us party to 
the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht, and made the forty-ninth 
parallel the same to us and the British which it had been to the French 
and the British ; it became a wall which neither could pass, so far as it 
depended upon that line." 



CHAPTER LXIX. 

THE TARIFF ACT OF 1846. THE WAREHOUSE SYSTEM. ESTABLISHMENT 

OF THE SUB-TREASURY. 

For months before the meeting of congress in December, 1845, indi- 
cations were given of an attempt against the tariff of 1842, and the 
protective system. The president and the secretary of the treasury, 

56 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



(Mr. Walker,) were both opposed to those two features of that tariff so 
obnoxious to anti-protectionists generally — the minimum principle and 
specific duties; and the gains known to have accrued to the anti-tariff 
party, had given protectionists strong premonitions of a successful 
attack upon their favorite policy. 

As had been intimated, the message, in discussing the tariff question, 
made a violent assault upon the act of 1842. " By the introduction of 
minimums, or assumed false values, and by the imposition of specific 
duties, the injustice and inequality of that act, in its practical operations 
on different classes and pursuits, are seen and felt." Many of the 
duties, the president said, under the operation of these principles, 
ranged from one per cent, to more than two hundred per cent. It was 
so framed as to throw much the greatest burden on labor and the poorer 
classes. Articles of prime necessity, or of coarse quality and low price, 
used by the masses of the people, were subjected to heavy duties, while 
articles of fine quality and high prices, used by the rich, were lightly 
taxed. He therefore recommended the abolition of specific duties and 
minimums, and the adoption of ad valorem duties, with a general modi- 
fication and reduction of the rates of duty. Congress might discrimi- 
nate in arranging the duties on different articles; but the discrimination 
should be within the revenue standard, and be made with the view to 
raise money for the support of government. His views of a revenue 
standard were thus given : 

" It becomes important to understand distinctly what is meant by a 
revenue standard, the maximum of which should not be exceeded in the 
rates of duty imposed. It is conceded, and experience proves, that duties 
may be laid so high as to diminish or prohibit altogether, the importation 
of any given article, and thereby lessen or destroy the revenue which, 
at lower rates, would be derived from the importation. Such duties 
exceed the revenue rates, and are not imposed to raise money for the 
support of government. If congress levy a duty for revenue of one per 
cent, on a given article, it will produce a given amount of money to the 
treasury, and will incidentally and necessarily afford protection or 
advantage, to the amount of one per cent, to the home manufacturer 
of a similar or like article over the importer. If the duty be raised to 
ten per cent., it will produce a greater amount of money, and afford 
greater protection. If it be still raised to twenty, twenty-five, or 
thirty per cent., and if, as it is raised, the revenue derived from it is 
found to be increased, the protection or advantage will also be increased; 
but if it be raised to thirty-one per cent., and it is found that the reve- 
nue produced at that rate is less than at thirty per cent., it ceases to ho 
a revenue duty. The precise point in the ascending scale of duties at 



THE TARIFF OF 1848. 867 

w^hich it is ascertained from experience that the revenue is greatest, ia 
the maximum rate of duty which can be laid for the bona fide purpose 
of collecting money for the support of government. To raise the duties 
higher than that point, and thereby diminish the amount collected, is to 
levy them for protection merely, and not for revenue. As long, then, 
as congress may gradually increase the rate of duty on a given article, 
and the revenue is increased by such increase of duty, they are within 
the revenue standard. When they go beyond that point, and, as they 
increase the duties, the revenue is diminished or destroyed, the act 
ceases to have for its object the raising of money to support government, 
but it is for protection merely. 

" It does not follow that congress should levy the highest duty on 
all articles of import which they will bear within the revenue standard ; 
for such rates would probably produce a much larger amount than the 
economical administration of the government would require. Nor does 
it follow that the duties on articles should be at the same or a horizon- 
tal rate. Some articles will bear a much higher revenue duty than 
others." 

The message was followed up and sustained by the report of the secre- 
tary of the treasury. The secretary said the revenue for the first quar- 
ter of the year was about two millions less than for the same quarter 
last year. This decrease he ascribed to the diminution of the importa- 
tion of some highly protected articles by the substitution of rival 
domestic products. The average of duties upon dutiable imports had 
been, during the nine remaining months of the first year, under the 
tarifi" of 1842, about 37 per cent. ; for the year ending June, 1844, 33 
per cent.; for 1845, about 30 per cent.; the diminished per centage 
being caused by the increased importation of some goods paying lighter 
duties, and the decreased importation of others bearing the higher duties. 
The revenue from ad valorem duties the last year had exceeded that 
from specific duties, although the average of the former was only about 
23 per cent., and the average of the latter, about 41 — presenting another 
strong proof that lower duties increase the revenue. 

The secretary had adopted, in suggesting improvements in the revenue 
laws, the following principles: 1st. No more should be collected than 
was necessary for the actual wants of the government. 2d. No duty 
should be imposed on any article above the lowest rate which would 
yield the most revenue. 3d. Below such rate, discrimination might be 
made, descending in the scale of duties ; or, for imperative reasons, the 
article might be made free from duty. 4th. The maximum revenue 
duty should be imposed on luxuries. 5th. Minimums and specific 
duties should be abolished, and ad valorem duties substituted — guard- 



868" THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

mg against fraudulent invoices and undervaluation, and assessing the 
duty upon the actual market value. 6th. The duties should be so im- 
posed as to operate as equally as possible throughout the union, and 
upon the different classes, 

A horizontal scale of duties — that is, a uniform rate upon all articles 
— was not recommended, because that would be a refusal to discrimi- 
nate for revenue, and might sink the revenue below the wants of the 
government. Some articles would yield the largest revenue at rates 
which would be wholly or partially prohibitory in other cases. Luxuries, 
as a general rule, would bear the highest revenue duties ; but even 
some very costly luxuries, easily smuggled, would bear but a light duty 
for revenue ; whilst other articles of great bulk and weight, would bear 
a higher duty for revenue. There must be discrimination for revenue, 
or the burthen of taxation must be augmented, in order to bring the 
same amount of money into the treasury. Hence it was diflBcult, 
he said, to adopt any arbitrary maximum which would answer in all 
cases. 

The report of the secretary was immediately subjected to a severe 
criticism, both in and out of congress. Mr. Andrew Stewart, of Penn- 
sylvania, on the question of referring that part of the message relating 
to the tariff, moved to instruct the committee to report, " as the sense 
of this house, that the tariff of 1842 ought not to be disturbed." 

The secretary had pronounced the tariff of 1842 unconstitutional, 
because it exceeded the revenue limit. A tariff bill, he said, was a 
bill for raising revenue, which ^as the only proper object of such a hill. 
" Whenever it departed from that object, in whole or in part, cither by 
total or partial prohibition, it violated the purpose of the granted 
power." Mr. Stewart referred to the messages of Washington, Jefferson, 
Madison, and Monroe, all of whom had emphatically recommended tho 
•protection of domestic manufactures. He also read the following lucid 
exposition from the second annual message of president Jackson : 

" The power to impose duties upon imports originally belonged to 
the several states. The right to adjust these duties, with a view to the 
encouragement of domestic industry, is so completely identical with 
that power, that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one with- 
out the other. The states have delegated their whole authority over 
imports to the general government, without limitation or restriction, 
saving the very inconsiderable reservation relating to ^he inspection 
laws. This authority having thus entirely passed froiA the states, the 
right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them ; 
and, consequently, if it be not possessed by the gener*^! government, it 
must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anamoly 



THE TARIFF F 1846, 869 

of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to 
counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be 
adopted by foreign nations. This surely cannot be the case ; this in- 
dispensable power, thus surrendered by the states, must be within the 
scope of authority on the subject expressly delegated to congress. In 
this conclusion I am confirmed, as well by the opinions of Presidents 
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly 
recommended this right under the constitution, as by the uniform prac- 
tice of congress, the continued acquiescence of the states, and the general 
understanding of the people.'' 

In answer to the question of Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, Who pays 
the duties when the government protects manufactures? Mr, Stewart 
said, the gentleman and his friends held that the consumer always paid 
the duty ; and the secretary had told the nation that the poor man was 
taxed eighty-two per cent, on cotton goods over the rich man. This 
unhappy "poor man" was taxed one hundred and fifty per cent, on his 
cotton shirt, because there was a specific duty on imported cotton goods 
of nine cents a yard ! This specific duty of nine cents was just one 
hundred and fifty per cent, on six cents, the price paid by the poor man 
for his cotton. So the practical effect of this horrid tax was, that the 
poor man got a good shirt at sixpence a yard. Those abominable min- 
imums, so obnoxious to the secretary, had been introduced by John C. 
Calhoun and William Lowndes, since which, the price of the poor man's 
cloth had fallen from thirty-six to six cents a yard. On that thirty-six 
cents, the tariff laid a duty of nine cents, which was then but twenty- 
five per cent, ad valorem ; now it was one hundred and fifty per cent. ; 
and why ? because the price had been reduced from thirty-six to six 
cents a yard ! Let the manufacturer run up the price to thirty-six 
cents again, and the duty of nine cents a yard would fall to twenty-five 
per cent. ; and, according to the secretary, the oppression would all be 
over : these friends of the poor man would be perfectly satisfied. 

Mr. Johnson asked again, if the tariff brought down prices, why did 
the manufacturer want it ? and what was it that reduced the price of 
other goods in proportion ? 

Mr. Stewart replied that such was not the fact. Silks, velvets, and 
other goods not manufactured here, had not declined in the same pro- 
portion ; nor had wages or agricultural produce ; because the protec- 
tive tariff had increased the supply of domestic goods by increasing com- 
petition, and had sustained wages and agricultural produce by creating 
an increased demand for both. If the gentleman could comprehend 
that demand and supply regulate price, it would be all plain to him. 

Mr. S. resumed his illustrations. No ad valorem duties were in>' 



870 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

posed by the tariff of 1842 above 50 per cent. ; how :hen did the presi- 
dent in his message get duties of 200 per cent. ? Just by converting 
the specific duties into ad valorem. For if the duty is 200 per cent., 
the price must be one-half only of the duty. Thus, glass is said to pay 
the enormous duty of 200 per cent.; and why ? because the duty was 
$4 per box, and the price $2. But if glass should fall to $1 per box, 
the duty would be 400 per cent. ! Nails in 1816 were 16 cents a 
pound ; on which a duty was laid of four cents a pound, which was 25 
per cent, on the price ; but according to the secretary's report, the duty 
was now 100 per cent., because the price had fallen to four cents a 
pound ! It was upon such ^principle as this that the secretary based 
his statement, that the people paid a tax of eighty-four millions, of 
which but twenty-seven went to the government, and fifty-four to the 
manufacturers. The secretary referred to a list of sixty or seventy ar- 
ticles paying specific duties, which, by being converted into ad valoreni, 
amounted to more than 100 per cent. And what did this prove? 
Simply that the prices of these articles had greatly fallen, as in the 
case of cottons. The explanation of all this, said Mr. S., was plain 
and easy. Competition, machinery, skill, and industry, had increased 
the supply ; and the increased supply had reduced the prices of glass, 
cotton, &c., while it had rendered the whole country prosperous by an 
increased demand for all the productions of the farmers. 

Mr. S. commented upon the president's definition of a revenue stand- 
ard of duty, and his rule for laying duties. According to that rule, 
when the American manufacturer had succeeded in supplying our own 
market, and begun to thrive, that would prove that the duty was no 
longer a revenue duty, but had become a protective duty, and must be 
reduced. As the American furnished more goods to the country, less 
foreign goods would be imported, revenue would be diminished, and the 
duty must come down. Under such a rule, what man in his senses 
would invest a dollar in manufactures ? When, by industry and enter- 
prise, he was getting the better of his foreign competitor, the duty must 
go down. If a shoemaker or a hatter had got possession of the market, 
the eye of this free trade system was fastened on him like a vulture. 
The secretary found he was doing too well, and the duty must be reduced 
to let in the foreigner. The moment the American was raised to his 
feet in this struggle with foreigners for the American market, he was to 
be knocked down by the executive poker, and walked over by his secre- 
tary Walker. And this was their American system. It was a British 
system — ^just such a one as Sir Robert Peel would have recommended, 
if he could have spoken through Mr. Polk. 

The secretary had said : " Experience proves that, as a general rule^ 



THE TARIFF OF 1846. 871 

a duty of twenty per cent, ad valorem, will yield the largest revenue." 
Mr. Stewart asked, "What was the well-known experience of the country ? 
We had a tariff of twenty per cent, in 1841-2, and what was the revenue? 
Not one-half its present amount. The revenue from imports was then 
about thirteen millions ; this year twenty-seven millions. Under the 
operation of that twenty per cent, horizontal duty, the business of the 
country was prostrate, the government was bankrupt, and the people 
little better. If the duties were reduced to a certain point, the 
duties would be insufficient to meet the public expenditures. To 
make up the revenue, the importations must be increased to such 
an amount as to drain the country of its specie, and soon leave it 
without the ability to buy. These facts had never been successfully 
answered. 

Mr. S. said the message and report assumed, that protective duties 
had increased prices. This he denied. He could prove, by documents, 
by every price current, and every merchant in the country, that the 
prices of protected goods had been reduced by competition since the 
introduction of minimums and specific duties in 1816, to one-half, one- 
third, one-fourth, and even to one-sixth part of what they were at that 
time. And while the poor man was now supplied at lower prices, the 
prices of labor, and of the produce of the farmer, owing to the increased 
demand produced by the increase of manufactures, had undergone little 
or no reduction. He challenged the president and secretary to prove 
that, in a single instance, protective duties had permanently increased 
prices. 

The president and secretary wanted a tariff just sufficient to meet the 
public expenditures, and no more. The present tariff, then, was just the 
thing. They tell us the expenditures have been this year $29,968,207, 
and the revenue, $29,769,133. Why, then, disturb or change the tariff? 
Last year, when threatened with a large surplus, we were told that the 
tariff must be reduced to reduce the revenue. Now we are told we must 
reduce the tariff to increase the revenue. Mr. Stewart continued his 
review of the message and report, commenting upon several other parts 
of them, quoting from Mr. Jefferson, and from Gen. Jackson's letter to 
Dr. Coleman. He also considered the effect- of the tariff upon agricul- 
ture. His argument was substantially the same on this point as in 1827, 
and as given in a preceding chapter. 

A long time was spent by the secretary of the treasury in connection 
with the committee of ways and means, in adjusting a bill, which was at 
length (April 14) reported to the house by Mr. M'Kay. Having given 
liberal abstracts of former discussions on this subject, it is considered 
unnecessary to present a sketch of the debate at this session. By a vote 



872 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of the house, the debate was to terminate the 2d of July, at 2 o'clock 
aud voting to commence. On the 30th of June, an attack was made 
upon it which was succeeded by sundry amendments. Niles' Register 
of July 4, in giving an account of the proceedings, says : 

On Tuesday, a great sensation was produced in the house by a speech 
delivered by Mr. Brinkerhoof, a leading administration member from 
Ohio, who announced that he was authorized to say, on behalf of the 
administration members of that state, that they were unanimously 
opposed to Mr. McKay's bill, and would not vote for it. He attacked 
the course of the administration in very strong and plain language, and 
that of the " organ" at Washington (the Union) especially. He asserted 
that those who agreed with him in the course proposed, " could defeat the 
bill, and would defeat it." Mr. B. was opposed to taxing tea and coffee. 
He complained bitterly that, after declaring that Oregon was ours of right, 
up to 54 degrees, 40 minutes, the government had come down below 49 
degrees, and given up the navigation of the Columbia. Now we must pay 
for a war for southern conquest, after you have given away millions upon 
millions of acres of our own territory at the north. Will you now ask from 
us to grant you a tax on tea aud coffee ? And do you think we will give 
it ? No ; we will do no such thing. I said in the beginning that I rose 
here to have some plain talk. And now I ask you, suppose you strike 
out tea and coffee from your bill, what then ? I have always stood up 
for a revenue tariff; I stand for it still. I will go neither for a tariff 
for protection, nor for a tariff for the destruction of revenue ; and there- 
fore the next question is, will your bill raise revenue enough for the use 
of the government without tea and coffee ? The average expenditure of 
this government has been shown to be nearly twenty-six millions per 
annum ; and you have brought us a bill which, without tea and coffee, 
will not give you eighteen millions. I am under no pledge to go for a 
tariff to destroy revenue, and especially when it is foreseen and so 
intended, that this shall lead to a permanent tax on tea and coffee. " To 
go with our eyes open, and with full knowledge, for the destruction 
of a tariff which does yield sufficient revenue, to a bill which begins with 
a deficit of three or four millions, we can not do it ; and we will not 
do it." 

This was the introduction to a violent debate, in which many members 
participated. The debate closed at the time appointed, after the conclu- 
eion of the seventy-thiirl speech. Then commenced a succession of pro- 
positions for amendment, Mr. M'Kay himself taking the lead. Among 
Ihe amendments adopted, was the exempting of tea and coffee from duty. 
On this the treasurer had calculated for some three millions of revenue 
To these articles was added salt^ which would considerably diminish it 



THE WAREHOUSE SYSTEM. 873 

The vote by which this article had been made free, was reconsidered and 
reversed. The bill was passed by the house, 114 to 94. 

In the senate, the bill continued in suspense about three weeks. The 
senate being known to be nearly equally divided upon it, the final action 
of that body was awaited with great anxiety. Senator Haywood, of 
North Carolina, a democrat, resigned his seat before the vote was taken. 
Mr. H. was opposed to the tariff of 1842, as also to the present bill ; 
considering the former too highly protective, and the latter as insuffi- 
cient to provide the necessary revenue. His resignation, which, it was 
apprehended, would effect the defeat of the bill, subjected him to severe 
censure from his political friends. He was denounced by the " official" 
paper as " an apostate and deserter," and as having " surrendered his 
post into the hands of the enemy." The governor of North Carolina 
being a whig, it was presumed that a tariff senator would be appointed 
in his place. Mr. Haywood was in favor of the tariff bill of 1844, 
reported by Mr. M'Kay. 

The fate of the bill was now considered suspended upon the vote of 
Mr. Jarnagin, a whig senator from Tennessee, who, though opposed to 
the bill, had been instructed by the democratic legislature of his state to 
vote for the repeal of the tariff of 1842; and he considered himself 
bound to obey the instructions. To insure his vote, however, and tho 
votes of several others, an objectionable provision of the bill was removed, 
and the bill was then passed, 28 to 27 ; its passage having been effected 
by the vote of Mr. Jarnagin. The house concurred in the amendment. 
Thus was established what was denominated the "revenue tariff" of 
1846. 

A bill was also passed, establishing what is called the warehouse 
system. By the provisions of this act, goods imported may be deposited 
in the public stores without the payment of the duties, there to be kept 
at the charge and risk of the owner, importer, or consignee. The goods 
are to be redelivered at any time within a year, on the payment of the 
duties ; or, without the payment of duties, if they are to be reshipped, 
on security being given that they shall be landed out of the jurisdic- 
tion of the United States. This bill, it was apprehended by the opposi- 
tion, would materially affect the revenue. It was pronounced " an 
adjunct to the anti-protective tariff act." It would enable foreigners to 
send in their goods at pleasure, and to store them in our warehouses 
without paying duties, until the market should please the owners. 
Hence it was called " a law to provide storehouses for foreign goods at 
a low rent." One effect of the law was, that goods being admitted 
immediately, large quantities were imported, and deposited until the 
1st of December following, when the new tariff went into operation ; thus 



874 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

allowing the foreigner to avail himself of the advantage of the low duiiea. 
At this session also was passed the act for reestablishing the sub- 
treasury, which had been repealed in 1842. In pursuance of a recom- 
mendation by the president in his annual message, a bill was reported 
early in the session, by the committee of ways and means. It passed the 
house April 2d, by a vote of 123 to 67. It passed the senate, August 
1st, by a strict party vote, 28 to 24. 

One of the principal provisions of this law, and that which, perhaps, 
was deemed most objectionable, and which was by some considered imprac- 
ticable, was that which required all receivers and disbursers of the public 
revenue, including all postmasters, to collect and pay out specie only. 
The opponents of the measure apprehended that the employment of so 
large a portion of the specie of the country in the payment of duties and 
other financial transactions, would have an unfavorable effect upon the 
currency, and embarrass commercial operations generally. The expen- 
siveness of the system was also urged as an objection. The cost of the 
necessary rooms, vaults, safes, &c., in the different places where the 
revenue is collected, and the compensation of the numerous treasurers, 
assistants, and clerks, might all be saved by the employment of banks to 
receive, keep, and pay out the public moneys. How faithfully the pro- 
visions of the law have been carried out, we have before us no data from 
which the fact can be determined. So far, however, as it applies to post- 
masters, its provisions are but little, if at all observed. 



CHAPTER LXX. 

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848. ELECTION OF GEN. TAYLOR. 

As early as the summer of 1846, soon after the early and successful 
battles in the Mexican war, and before the presidential question had been 
much agitated, the name of Gen. Taylor began to be mentioned in con- 
nection with the presidency of 1848. At an early period of the next 
year, formal nominations of the general at public meetings had already 
become frequent. Several letters addressed him on the subject, with his 
replies, had appeared in the papers ; and long before the close of the 
year, he was prominently before the people as a candidate. Although he 
was said to be a whig, he had in all his letters disclaimed party attach- 
ments and party preferences, and had scrupulously refrained from any 
declaration of his political opinions. 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848. 875 

Many of the old aud firm friends of Mr. Clay were reluctant to aban- 
don their long-tried candidate. Others, though they had no personal 
objection to Mr. Clay, doubting his availability, were for dropping him 
for " some man," to use the language of a prominent whig editor — 
"whose name had not been for years the watch-word of party divisions ; 
who commands, by his character and his acts, the respect and admiration 
of the whole country, and whom all men and all parties can support, 
without giving the lie to their past conduct. If there is any such man 
in this country at present, it is Gen. Taylor." 

It soon became apparent, however, that he could not obtain the unani- 
mous support of the whig party. He was a slaveholder, and it was pre- 
sumed that he was in favor of the extension of slavery, or at least that 
his influence would not be exerted against it. The acquisition of an 
extensive territory from Mexico was then in prospect ; and a large por- 
tion of the whig party, being committed to the Wilmot proviso, were 
opposed to the election of any man for president who was not known 
to be in favor of applying that proviso to the territories of the United 
States. Another objection to Gren. Taylor was, that he was not a pro- 
fessed whig. Indeed he disavowed having any connection with, or affinity 
for any political party; and declared the purpose of being elected, if at 
all, as a no-party candidate. In reply to a letter from a committee "of a 
democratic meeting in Tennessee, which had solicited an expression of 
his views in relation to the principles of that party, he refused to make 
any declaration of his sentiments, saying, that, even if disposed to do so, 
he could not spare the time from his official duties for such an investiga- 
tion of political subjects as would enable him to make a reply satisfactory 
to himself or to the committee. He had been for nearly forty years in 
the military service, most of the time in the field, in the camp, or on the 
western frontier — situations unfavorable to investigation — and during 
which period he had not even voted for a chief magistrate or any other 
public officer ; having been during the greater part of the time beyond 
the limits of the states. If elected — ^which would be done without any 
agency of his own — he would serve the people honestly and faithfully, 
and in conformity to the provisions of the constitution, according to the 
construction and practice of the early presidents, two of whom (Wash 
ington and Madison) had participated in creating it and putting it into 
operation. 

In a letter to Dr. Bronson, of South Carolina, he said : " If I were 
called to the presidential chair hy the general voice of the people, with- 
out regard to their political diff'erences, I should deem it to be my duty 
to accept the office." But he said " he could not submit to the exaction 
of any other pledge as to the course he should pursue, than that of dis- 



876 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

charging the functions of the office to the best of his abilitj, and in 
accordance with the requirements of the constitution." In this letter 
he went so far as to say, that though he had never exercised the privilege 
of voting, had he been called upon at the last presidential election to do 
so, he should most certainly have cast his vote for Mr. Clay. 

Probably no other candidate for the presidency ever wrote so many 
letters relating to his nomination and election ; and in all his corres- 
pondence he maintained the position first assumed, that " he would not be 
the candidate of any party ;" that " if he ever filled that high office, it 
must be untrammeled with party obligations ;" that he " would be the 
chief magistrate of the nation, and not of a party;" that he " could not 
in any case permit himself to be brought before the people exclusively 
by any of the political parties, that now so unfortunately divided the 
country." He had no objection to being nominated by meetings or con- 
ventions, whether designated as whig, democratic, or native ; but he 
" must insist on the condition — and his position on this point was im- 
mutable — that he should not be brought forward as the candidate of any 
party, or considered as the exponent of its party doctrines." Again : if 
elected, he would " look to the constitution, and the high interests of 
our common country, and not to the principles of a party, for his rules 
of action ;" and " if the whig party desired at the next presidential elec- 
tion to cast their votes for him, they must do it on their own responsi- 
bility, and without any pledges from him." And again, he said : "If 
nominated by the whig national convention, I shall not refuse acceptance, 
provided I am left free of all pledges, and permitted to maintain the 
position of independence of all parties, in which the people and my own 
sense of duty, have placed me : otherwise I shall refuse the nomination of 
any convention or party." And he said farther, that he did not intend 
to withdraw his name, though Mr. Clay should be the nominee of the 
national convention, or whoever might be nominated by the national con- 
vention of either party. 

These repeated declarations of Gen. Taylor, that he would not be the 
candidate of the whig party, as a party, or assume any party obligation, 
were considered by a large portion of the whig party, as an insuperable 
objection to his receiving a nomination. A man " who would not be the 
exponent of whig doctrines," ought not to receive the nomination of the 
whig convention. 

The democratic national convention met at Baltimore on the 22d of 
May, 1848. The president of the convention was Andrew Stevenson, of 
Virginia. The two-thirds rule, as in former late conventions, was adopted. 
The harmony of the convention was much disturbed by the conflicting 
claims of two sets of delegates from the state of New York, designated 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848, 877 

' Hunkers" and *' Barnburners," each claiming to be the regular dele- 
gates. Members of each delegation were allowed to advocate their 
respective claims. On the 4th day of the session, by a vote of 133 to 
118, both delegations were admitted to seats in the convention, with 
power jointly to cast the vote of the state. Mr. Daniel S. Dickinson, of 
the Hunker delegation, made a formal protest against the admission of 
both delegations, as calculated to satisfy neither party. Mr. Cambreleng, 
of the other party, asked leave for the Barnburner delegation to retire, 
which was granted. The next day, the latter delegation having left, Mr. 
James C. Smith, one of their number, presented a protest against the 
action of the convention ; and the delegation declined taking seats with 
the others, the former alone being entitled to them. Mr. Dickinson, in 
behalf of the Hunkers, said they could not vote in the convention, con- 
sistently with dignity and propriety. So neither delegation took part in 
the nominations. . 

Gen. Cass, on the first ballot, received 125 votes, being just one-half 
of the whole number cast ; on the second ballot he received 153, being a 
large majority ; and on the 4th ballot, 179; Mr. Woodbury, 38; Mr. 
Buchanan, 33 ; and Gren. Worth, 3. Having a majority of two-thirds, 
Gen. Cass was declared nominated. For candidate for vice-president, 
Gen. William 0. Butler, of Kentucky, received the unanimous vote of 
the convention, except New York, which did not vote. 

The whig national convention met at Philadelphia on the 7th of June 
John C. Morehead, of North Carolina, was chosen president of the con- 
vention. Disturbed, and even tumultuous as the democratic convention 
was said to have been, it was probably no more so than its whig rival. 
From the well known fact that the mass of the whig party was in favor 
of the Wilmot proviso, and from the dissatisfaction which prevailed, at 
the unwillingness of Gen. Taylor to commit himself to whig principles, 
as well as from the belief that a majority of the delegates elect were in 
favor of Mr. Clay, his nomination was regarded as almost certain. On 
the second day, a secret session was held ; after which, the ballotings 
commenced. Gen. Taylor received on the first ballot 1 1 1 votes ; Mr. 
Clay, 97; Mr. Webster, 21 ; Gen. Scott, 46; John M'Lean, 2. After 
another unsuccessful attempt, farther ballotting was deferred till the 
next day. A proposition made by the Ohio delegation, to exclude all 
candidates for nomination who were not openly avowed whigs, was, after 
a warm debate, ruled out of order. The Louisiana delegation stated, 
professedly by authority of Gen. Taylor himself, that he was in the hands 
of his friends, who were at liberty to withdraw his name if they thought 
proper, though he did not consider it proper to do so himself. He also con- 
sidered it the duty of his friends to abide the decision of the convention. 



878 THE AMERICAN SEATES.ttAN. 

The balloting was resumed the next day (June 9th,) Gen. Taylor re- 
ceiving 133 votes; Mr. Clay, 74; Gen. Scott, 53; Mr. Webster, 16; 
John M. Clayton, 1. The second ballot of that day, resulted in a choice ; 
Gen. Taylor having 171 votes; Mr. Clay, 30; Gun. Soott, 63; Mr. 
Webster, 12. 

The state of feeling which prevailed in the convention is exhibited in 
a report of a part of the proceedings, made by the delegate from the 8th 
district of New York, Isaac Piatt, who vouches for its accuracy : 

After the organization, resolutions having been offered proposing to 
commence voting for candidates, Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, moved to amend 
the resolutions by adding, that, to entitle a candidate to a nomination, 
he must have given " assurances that he would abide by, and support 
the nomination ; that he would accept it ; that he would consider him- 
self the candidate of the whigs ; and that he would use his influence to 
bring into practical operation the principles and measures of the whig 
party." An angry excitement, great confusion, and numerous calls to 
order, followed ; and the president declared the resolution out of order, 
from which decision Mr. C. appealed, and the question of appeal was 
debated by himself and others. 

Mr. Fuller, of New York, having succeeded in getting the floor, ofiered 
the following resolution, which had been drawn up by Mr. Piatt : 

" Resolved^ That, as the first duty of the representatives of the whig 
party is to preserve the principles and integrity of that party, the claims 
of no candidate for nomination can be considered by this convention, 
anless such candidate stands pledged to support, in good faith, the 
aominees, and to be the exponent of whig principles." 

This resolution was said to have been followed by a greater excite- 
nent than the first; Several of the Taylor men, it was said, " became 
iearly furious, while their opponents insisted that it contained nothing 
lo which any whigs should object." This resolution also was declared 
iut of order. An appeal was made, and, amidst great confusion and ex- 
.ntement, laid on the table. 

Mr. Allen, of ]VIassachusetts, after the nomination, expressed tlie 
opinion, that, by this nomination, the whig party had been that day dis- 
solved ; still, he would make one more eff'ort to apply the proper party 
test, and presented a resolution, a part of which only was read, and the 
reception of which was said to be correctly reported, as follows : 

"Resolved, That the whig party, through its representatives here, 
igrees to abide by the nomination of Gen. Zachary Taylor, [cheers,] on 
condition that he will accept the nomination of the whig party, and 
idhere to its great fundamental principles : No extension of slave terri- 
".ory by conquest [hisses and cheers, cries of order, sit down, hear him,] 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848, 879 

protection to American industry, [tremendous cheers, rapping, and cries 
of order, sit down, go on,] opposition to executive patronage, [cheers 
and hisses.] Mr. Chairman : I — " [Such were now the rapping, the cries 
of order, and the confusion, as to prevent Mr. Allen from proceeding ; 
and, without being permitted to resume, the president declared him out 
of order.] 

A resolution having been moved declaring the unanimous nomination 
of Messrs. Taylor and Fillmore, another excitement was produced by a 
motion to divide the resolution. It having become manifest that unan- 
imity was not to be secured, Mr. Tilden, of Ohio, presented the 
following resolution, upon the adoption of which, he said, the vote of 
that state would depend. 

" Resolved^ That, while all power is denied to congress under the 
constitution, to control, or in any way interfere with, the institution of 
slavery within the several states of this union, it nevertheless has the 
power, and it is the duty of congress to prohibit the introduction or 
existence of slavery in any territory now possessed, or which may here- 
after be acquired by the United States." This resolution, it was said, 
created a more angry excitement than any of those previously offered, 
and was laid on the table. Probably to prevent the introduction of 
more resolutions, it was agreed that the resolution of concurrence also 
should be laid upon the table. 

As a last desperate movement, Mr. Hilliard, of Alabama, introduced 
a resolution approving the doctrines of Gen. Taylor's letter to Captain 
Allison ; but this also being opposed, it was withdrawn, and the conven- 
tion adjourned without passing any resolutions having reference to whig 
principles, the issues before the country, or of concurrence in the nomi- 
nations. 

The Allison letter here referred to, contained a fuller exposition of 
his political opinions than any other of his published letters, and ap- 
peared to be satisfactory to the great body of the whig party. We sub- 
join that part of the letter which constitutes his platform of principles. 
Being " not suflSciently familiar with all the minute details of political 
legislation to pledge his influence to carry out this or defeat that mea- 
Bure," he refrains from committing himself to any particular measures, 
saying : " One who cannot be trusted without pledges, can not be con- 
fided in merely on account of them." He then proceeds to respond to 
the inquiries of his correspondent thus : 

" First — I reiterate what I have often said — I am a whig, b it not an 
ultra whig. If elected I would not be the mere president of a party. I 
would endeavor to act independent of party domination. I should feel 
bound to administer the government untrammeled by party schemes. 



880 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

" Second — The veto power. The power giveu by the constitution to 
the executive to interpose his veto, is a high conservative power ; but 
in my opinion should never be exercised except in cases of clear viola- 
tion of the constitution, or manifest haste and want of consideration by 
congress. Indeed, I have thought that for many years past, the known 
opinions and wishes of the executive, have exercised undue and injurious 
influence upon the legislative department of the government; and for 
this cause I have thought our system was in danger of undergoing a 
great change from its true theory. The personal opinions of the indi- 
vidual who may happen to occupy the executive chair, ought not to con- 
trol the action of congress upon questions of domestic policy, nor ought 
his objections to be interposed where questions of constitutional power 
have been settled by the various departments of government and 
acquiesced in by the people. 

" Third — Upon the subject of the tariff, the currency, the improve- 
ment of our great highways, rivers, lakes, and harbors, the will of the 
people, as expressed through their representatives in congress, ought to 
be respected and carried out by the executive. 

" Fourth — The Mexican war. I sincerely rejoice at the prospect of 
peace. My life has been devoted to arms, yet I look upon war at all 
times and under all circumstances as a national calamity, to be avoided 
if compatible with national honor. The principles of our government 
as well as its true policy, are opposed to the subjugation of other nations, 
and the embarrassment of other countries by conquest. In the language 
of the great Washington, " Why should we quit our own to stand on 
foreign ground ?" In the Mexican war, our national honor has been 
vindicated, amply vindicated, and in dictating terms of peace we may 
well afford to be forbearing and even magnanimous to our foes." 

The nomination of Gen. Taylor was immediately followed by expres- 
sions of dissatisfaction by whigs in all parts of the north ; and a largo 
portion of the party declared their determination not to support the 
ticket. So extensive was the dissent to the nomination, that, but for 
the division of their political opponents, there could have been little 
hope of electing their candidates. Mass meetings were soon called of 
the disaffected irrespective of party, and resolutions adopted declaring 
uncompromising hostility to the extension of slave territory ; and a long 
time did not elapse before there appeared to be a prevailing determina- 
tion to form a new party, based upon the principle of the Wilmot pro- 
viso, which purpose was soon carried into effect. 

Meetings also of the disaffected of the democratic party were held, at 
which opposition was declared against the nominees of the Baltimore 
convention. A state convention of the Barnburners was held at Utica, 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848. 881 

New York, on the 22d and 23d of June, the Hon. Samuel Young, pre- 
siding. A letter had been previously addressed to Mr. Van Bureu 
on the subject of the presidency, to which he had replied, expressing his 
adherence to the determination formed in 1844, not to be again a candi- 
date for the presidency. The letter, however, was in favor of free 
territory principles, and declared that he could not vote for Gen. Cass 
or Gen. Taylor. The convention, notwithstanding, nominated Mr. Van 
Buren for president, and Henry Dodge, senator in congress from Wis- 
consin, for vice-president. The latter declined the nomination, and 
supported Gen. Cass. 

On the 9th of August was held a national mass convention of the 
friends of free territory at Buffalo. Nearly all of the free, and three 
of the slave states, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, were represented. 
After the temporary organization of the convention, its sentiments were 
indicated by the adoption, by acclamation, of three resolutions which 
were read by the Hon. Preston King, of New York, and which were in 
substance as follows : First ^ That it is the duty of the federal govern- 
ment to abolish slavery wherever it has the constitutional power to do 
so, and that the government is responsible for its existence in such 
places. Second^ That the states within which slavery exists, are alone 
responsible for the continuance or existence of it within those states, and 
that the general government has no authority over slavery within the 
states. Third, That the true and safe means of preventing the exist- 
ence of slavery in territory now free, is by congressional action. 

Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, was chosen president of 
the convention ; and a vice-president from each of the states. The 
committee on nominations reported in favor of the nomination of Martin 
Van Buren for president ; and on balloting Mr. Van Buren received 
244 rotes, and John P. Hale 181. Mr. Hale was senator in congress 
from New Hampshire, a democrat, who had become separated from his 
party by his adoption of the " free soil " principle. He was at this time 
a candidate for president, having been nominated by the anti-slavery 
party. Charles Francis Adams was nominated by acclamation for vice- 
president. Before the convention proceeded to the balloting, a letter 
from Mr. Van Buren was read to the convention, approving the objects 
of preventing the introduction of slavery in the territories, and expressing 
the wish that another name might be substituted for his own, which had 
already been used for this purpose. Mr. Hale having expressed his 
willingness to submit to the action of the convention, his name was sub- 
sequently withdrawn from the list of candidates. 

The position of Gen. Cass in relation to the Wilmot proviso, was 
defined in a letter to a Mr. Nicholson of Tennessee. He had been in favor 

56 



882 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of applying that restrictive principle to the territory of the United 
States ; but he had receded from that position. He said in the letter 
alluded t(j : " The Wilmoi proviso has been before the country some 
time. It has been repeatedly discussed in congress, and by the public 
press. 

" I am strongly impressed with the opinion that a change has been 
going on in the public mind upon this subject — in my own as well as 
others ; and that doubts are resolving themselves into conviction, that 
the principles it involves should be kept out of the legislatures, and left 
to the people of the confederacy in their respective local goveruments. 

" Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by 
congress, over this matter ; and I am in favor of leaving to the people 
of any territory which may be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate 
it for themselves under the general principles of the constitution." 

Gen. Taylor was addressed, immediately after his nomination, by the 
president of the convention, informing him of his nomination ; but for 
reasons unknown, the letter of acceptance was long delayed. He having 
pertinaciously refused to be considered a party candidate, and having 
even stated, in some of his letters, that he would as willingly receive 
a nomination from the democratic or native American party as from the 
whigs, the public waited impatiently to learn whether he would accept 
as a whig. Judging, perhaps, from the representations of the Louis- 
iana delegation in the convention, it was hoped, and some of his friends 
confidently predicted, that he would so accept the nomination. The let- 
ter which at length appeared, under date of July 15th, did not fully 
meet the expectations of those who considered it his duty to accept as a 
whig candidate. He said : 

" Looking to the composition of the convention, and its numbers and 
patriotic constituents, I feel duly grateful for the honor bestowed upon 
me, for the distinguished confidence implied in my nomination to the 
highest office in the gift of the American people. I cordially accept 
that nomination, but with sincere distrust of my fitness to fulfill the 
duties of an office which demands for its exercise the most exalted abili- 
ties and patriotism, and which has been rendered illustrious by the great- 
est names in our history." 

Besides his answers to letters from other parties, he had also responded 
to a letter from a meeting of all parties, or, as it may be termed, a " no- 
party" meeting at Baltimore by which he had been nominated, in which 
letter he said : 

" The political sentiments embraced in the preamble and resolutions 
adopted at that meeting, I rejoice to say, meet ray cordial approval and 
assent. No movements in any part of the country, having the object to 
< "^er testimonials of honor and respect towards myself, or to advocate my 



ELECTION OF GEN. TAYLOR. 883 

election to the presidency, have caused in me more lively pleasure, or 
demand more my gratitude.'' And having made the nomination " on 
their own responsibility, free from party action, and the exaction of 
pledges from myself, I shall serve them strictly as a constitutional, and 
not as a party president." 

Gren. Taylor continued, after his nomination, to write letters of the 
same character as those which he had written before, disclaiming that he 
was a party candidate. To a friend in Charleston, South Carolina, he 
wrote, that he had accepted the nomination of the Philadelphia conven- 
tion and of many primary assemblages, irrespective of party, " and would 
have accepted the nomination of the Baltimore convention, had it been 
tendered on the same terms." 

At Charleston, he was nominated by a meeting of the democrats, who 
apprehended that Gen. Cass, being a northern man, was not reliable on 
the subject of slavery, which the meeting resolved to be "paramount to 
all questions." A copy of the proceedings of the meeting was sent 
him, together with an address, in which it was stated : " We know 
that, in this great paramount and leading question of the rights of the 
south, he is of us, he is with us, and he is for us;" and also 
a letter formally apprising him of the nomination. He acknowledged 
the receipt of the letter " with emotions of profound gratitude," and 
added : " Concluding that this nomination, like all others which I have 
had the honor of receiving from assemblages of my fellow-citizens in 
various parts of the union, has been generously offered, without pledges 
and conditions, it is thankfully accepted ;" &c. 

The appearance of these letters simultaneously with the defective 
acceptance of the whig nomination, and the additional fact that he had 
accepted the Charleston nomination, knowing that his name was on the 
same ticket with that of the democratic candidate for vice-president, 
thus giving countenance to a part of the democratic ticket, excited 
among the whigs feelings of chagrin and indignation. At Albany, on 
the arrival of the news of the general's acceptance of the Charleston 
democratic slavei'y nomination, a call was issued for a meeting of the 
whigs to take the subject into consideration. A large and enthusiastic 
meeting was held, at which the leading whigs of the city declared their 
determination to abandon the support of Gen. Taylor. The meeting, 
which took place on Saturday evening, was adjourned till Monday even- 
ing, when, upon more mature consideration, the purpose expressed at the 
previous meeting was relinquished. The murmurs of dissatisfaction 
from the mass of the disaffected whigs soon ceased ; and before the 
election, most of the dissenters had returned to their party allegiance. 

Of the presidential electors chosen at the election in November, 163 
gave their votes for Taylor and Fillmore; and 127 for Cass and Butler 



884 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 



CHAPTEE LXXI. 

BILLS FOE. CALIFORNIA AND OTHER TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS. 

One of the exciting topics of the session of 1847-48, was the estab- 
lishment of a territorial government for Oregon. A bill for this pur- 
pose was reported early in the session, but was not disposed of until 
just at its close. The question of slavery, including the Wilmot pro- 
viso and the Missouri compromise, furnished the matter for this pro- 
tracted debate. The question of the power of congress to legislate on 
the subject of slavery in the territories, was elaborately discussed in 
the senate, by Mr. Dix, of New York, and Mr. Calhoun ; the former 
most ably maintaining the affirmative of the proposition, and the latter 
denying it. 

Mr. Dix, although he made a luminous and powerful argument in 
favor of the power in question, stated certain positions which he thought 
constituted a proper basis for the settlement of the question ; positions,, 
the correctness of which a majority of the friends of free territory, it is 
believed, do not concede. They are these : 1. All external interference 
with slavery in the states is a violation of the compromises of the con- 
stitution, and dangerous to the harmony and perpetuity of the federal 
union. 2. Territory acquired by the United States, should, in re- 
spect to slavery, be received as it is found. If slavery exists therein 
at the time of the acquisition, it should be left to remain undisturbed 
by congress. If it does not exist therein at the time of the acquisition, 
its introduction ought to be prohibited while the territory continues to 
be governed as such. 3. All legislation by congress in respect to 
slavery in the territory, ceases to be operative when the inhabitants are 
permitted to form a state government; and the admission of a state into 
the union carries with it, by force of the sovereignty such admission 
confers, the right to dispose of the whole question of slavery at its dis- 
cretion, without external interference. 

If by the " external interference " referred to in the first position, is 
meant external legislative interference with slavery in the states, the 
proposition will not be disputed by any one. But if this interference is 
intended to include all discussion and agitation of the question of 
slavery, and all attempts, by moral means, to efi"ect the abolition of 
slavery in the states, the position will be extensively controverted. 
The assertion in the second position, that congress, although it has 



' CALHOUN ON SLAVERY. 885 

power to remove a serious evil, ought to leave it as it is found, is equally 
far from receiving general assent. As to the third proposition, if it 
goes so far as to deny the power of congress to refuse the admission of 
a state on the ground that its constitution does not prohibit slavery, 
this doctrine also, it is believed, is not in accordance with public sen- 
timent in the free states. The right of a state, after its admission, to 
establish slavery, is not disputed. 

Mr. Calhoun denied the existence of the power of congress to exclude 
the south from a free admission into the territories with its slaves. He 
denied what had been by many assumed, that congress had an absolute 
right to govern the territories. The clause of the constitution which 
gives " power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United 
States," did not, he said, convey such a right : " it conferred no gov- 
ernmental power whatever ; no, not a particle." It only referred to 
territory as public lands — as property — and gave to congress the right 
to dispose of it as such, but not to exercise over it the power of govern- 
ment. Mr. Calhoun thought the best method of settling the slavery 
question was by non-action — b}^ leaving the territories free and open to 
the emigration of all the world, and when they became states, to permit 
them to adopt whatever constitution they pleased. 

Mr. Calhoun considered the interference on the subject dangerous to 
the union. If the union and our system of government were ever doomed 
to perish, the historian who should record the events ending in so calami- 
tous a result, would devote his first chapter to the ordinance of 1787 ; 
his next to the Missouri compromise ; and the next to the present 
agitation. Whether there would be another beyond, he knew not. He 
reviewed and controverted the doctrines of the declaration of independ- 
ence. The proposition that " all men are created free and equal " he 
called a "hypothetical truism." Literally, there was not a word of 
truth in it. This assertion he supported with the singular argument, 
that " men are not born free. Infants are born. They grow to be 
men. They were not born free. While infants, they are incapable of 
freedom ; they a e subject to their parents." Nor was it less false that 
they are born " equal." But in the declaration of independence the 
word " free " did not occur. Still the expression was erroneous. " All 
men are not created. Only two, a man and a woman, were created, and 
one of these was pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have 
come into the world by being boin, and in 1:0 sense, as I have shown, 
either free or equal." This expression, Mr. C. said, had been inserted 
in the declaration without any necessity. It made no necessary part 
of our justification in separating ourselves from the parent country. 



88G THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Nor had it any weight in constructing the governments which were to 
bo substituted in the place of the colonial. They were formed from the 
old materials, and on practical and well established principles, borrowed, 
for the most part, from our own experience, and that of the country 
from which we sprang. 

Mr. Calhoun argued, that, instead of liberty and equality being born 
with men. and instead of all men and all classes being entitled to them, 
they were high prizes to be won; they were rewards bestowed on men- 
tal and moral development. The error which he was combating had 
done more to retard the cause of liberty and civilization, and was doing 
more at present, than all other causes combined. It was the leading 
cause which had placed Europe in its present state of anarchy, and 
which stood in the way of reconstructing good governments. He con- 
cluded as follows : 

" Nor are we exempt from its disorganizing effects. We now begin 
to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place 
in the declaration of our independence. For a long time it lay dor- 
mant ; but in process of time it began to germinate, and produce its 
poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the 
author of that document, which caused him to take an utterly false 
view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race in the 
south ; and to hold, in consequence, that the latter, though utterly un- 
qualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and 
equality as the former ; and that to deprive them of it was unjust and 
immoral. To this error, his proposition to exclude slavery from the 
territory north-west of the Ohio may be traced, and to that the ordi- 
nance of 1787, and through it the deep and dangerous agitation which 
now threatens to engulph, and will certainly engulph, if not speedily 
settled, our political institutions, and involve the country in countless 
woes." 

On the 6th of July, the Oregon bill being still pending, the president 
transmitted to congress a message, with a copy of the ratified treaty. On 
the lltb, Mr. Clayton, in the senate, moved that the Oregon bill and 
amendment be referred to a select committee of eip' tt, four from the 
north, and four from the south, equally divided also as to their party 
politics. A modification being suggested by Mr. Bright, of Indiana, 
so as to include so much of the president's message as related to the 
new territory of California, New Mexico, &c., recently acquired by 
treaty with Mexico, and referred to the select committee of eight. The 
propositiou having been accepted by Mr. Clayton, it was adopted, 31 to 
14. On the 18th, Mr. Clayton, from the select committee, reported a 
bill to establish territorial governments in New Mexico and California. 
The following is a synopsis of the report : 



TERRITCRIAL JOVERNMENT BILLS. 887 

The committee recommended the passage of the Oregon bill, nearly 
as it came from the house, and without the senate's proposed amend- 
ments, simply amending it so as to hold the existing territorial laws of 
Oregon in force, until after the new government had time to act, and 
to reenact or repeal them. Oregon was to have a legislative assembly 
of two houses, elected by the people. 

New Mexico and California were to be organized into separate terri- 
tories, with governors, judges, secretaries, district attorneys, and mar- 
shals, appointed by the president and senate of the United States; the 
constitution and laws of the United States to be extended over them : 
the governors and judges in California and New Mexico to constitute a 
legislative council, and to be authorized to pass laws, subject to the re- 
vision or rejection of congress ; but such council not to legislate re- 
specting slavery, the establishment of religion, the pledging of the faith 
of the territory, nor to dispose of the soil. If any question on the sub- 
ject of slavery should arise, it was to be left to the decision of the ju- 
diciary of the United States. Courts were to be established, with the 
right to appeal to the supreme court of the United States. 

Here was a compromise bill, not to divide free and slave territory 
upon a given line, but proposing equal advantages to slavery. A com- 
promise line had been proposed and rejected in the committee of eight; 
and the plan reported was the only one that could be devised, which 
would secure any approach to unanimity. By the opponents of slavery, 
the bill was considered as almost certain to secure the preoccupation of 
the territory to slavery. The taking of the power of legislating for the 
territory out of the hands of the two hundred and ninety representar 
lives of the nation, and conferring it upon some eight or ten persons 
appointed by a slave-holding president, and forbidden to pass any law 
respecting slavery, thus leaving the country open to slaveholders ; sub- 
jecting questions of slavery to the decision of the local judges, also ap- 
pointed by the president ; appeals from their decision to be taken to 
the supreme court of the United States — a majority of the judges being 
slaveholders : — all this was regarded as tantamount to the establishment 
of slavery in those vast territories. 

By the provisional government then existing in Oregon, slavery was 
prohibited. The present bill pi'ovided, that, if the territorial legislature 
of Oregon should not reaffirm the law of the provisional government 
prohibiting slavery, within three months after the assembling of the 
first territorial legislature, that law was to be null and void. By 
another provision of the bill, all bills passed by the territorial legisla- 
ture were required to be submitted to congress, and, if not approved, 
were to be void. As it was not probable that both houses of congress 



888 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

would at any time be opposed to the introduction of slavery in tlie ter- 
ritories, this provision was considered as in effect removing the restric- 
tion upon slavery in that territory. This bill, with some amendments, 
one of which allowed an appeal from a decision of the state court to the 
supreme court of the United States, in any case involving the question 
of personal freedom, passed the senate, on the morning of the 27th of 
July, after a continuous session of twenty-one hours. The vote was, 
ayes, 33 ; noes, 22. In the house, the bill was taken up the next day, 
and, by a vote of 112 to 97, laid on the table. The house then, in 
committee of the whole, resumed the consideration of their own bill pro- 
viding a government for Oregon, which passed that body on the 2d of 
August, 129 to 71. It contained a provision for extending the ordi- 
nance of 1787 over the territory ; and another to abolish the veto power 
of the governor. In the senate, it was amended so as to restore this 
power to the governor. The section also prohibiting slavery, was 
amended, by inserting, " Inasmuch as the said territory is north of the 
parallel of 36 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude, usually known 
as the Missouri compromise." As the whole territory of Oregon lies 
north of the 42d degree, the object of this amendment was to make the 
record appear that slavery was prohibited in that territory, in accord- 
ance with the compromise, in order to remove all ground for any future 
pretext to carry the anti-slavery proviso south of the compromise line. 

These amendments of the senate were all negatived in the house, 
ayes, 82 ; noes, 121 ; and the bill returned to the senate, where, after a 
protracted debate, the question on a motion to recede from the amend- 
ment by which the Missouri compromise had been inserted, was taken, 
and " carried in the affirmative, 29 to 25. The bill was then passed by 
the same vote, Sunday morning, the 1 3th of August. The session closing 
the next day, no bill was passed for the government of the new terri- 
tories. It was supposed, and not altogether without reason, that the 
" free soil" movement at the north contributed, in no small degree, to 
effect the passage of the Oregon bill. 

At the next session (1848-49,) another unsuccessful attempt was made 
to provide for the government of the newly acquired territory. A bill was 
introduced into the senate, December 11, 1848, by Mr. Douglass, of 
Illinois, for the admission of California as a state, to include all the ter- 
ritory acquired by treaty from Mexico. The state was to come into the 
union on an equal footing with the other states. The laws of the United 
States were to be extended over the new state, so far as they were not 
locally inapplicable. Congress reserved the right to form and admit new 
states from that portion of the territory lying east of the Sierra Nevada, 
or California mountains. The bill also provided for the establishment 



TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT BILLS. 889 

of courts ; and gave to the state, until the next apportionment, two 
representatives in congress. 

Mr. Douglas said he was ready to support the bill of Mr. Clayton, 
which had been defeated at the last session, and still more so to support 
a bill carrying out the Missouri compromise as proposed by himself. 
But if this could not be had, he was in favor of giving law to the people 
of that country by bringing them at once into the union. Amendments 
were proposed to this bill, one of which, (by Mr. Davis, of Mississippi,) 
was to annex New Mexico to Texas, with the view of immediately legal- 
izing slavery in that part of the acquired territory. This proposition 
was prompted, probably, by the movement of the people in New Mexico. 
A convention or the people had been held in October, 1848, and a peti- 
tion adopted, remonstrating against being annexed to Texas, and praying 
to be protected against the introduction of slavery into their territory. 
This petition had been presented by Mr. Benton before the introduction 
of the bill of Mr. Douglas. Mr. Benton moved the printing of the peti- 
tion. Mr. Calhoun said he would not object to the printing, but he de- 
clared the petition to be a disrespectful and an insolent one. These people 
had been conquered by the very men whom they wished to exclude from- 
that territory ; and this they knew. He claimed it as a constitutional 
right to go there with his property ; and he protested against being gov- 
erned by the consideration presented under such circumstances as that 
under which this petition had been presented. Mr. Benton said that 
himself and Mr. Clayton had both been charged with the presentation 
of the petition ; and he thought they were called upon to defend those 
who had sent so respectful a petition against the charge of insolence. 
Mr. Kusk, of Texas, claimed, as belonging to Texas, all that part of 
New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande : and he protested against 
establishing over it a distinct and separate government. Mr. Benton's 
motion to print the petition was warmly opposed ; but it was finally car- 
ried, 33 to 14; the noes being all from southern senators. 

The bill of Mr. Douglas was silent on the subject of slavery, and also 
that of boundary, leaving an indefinite portion of New Mexico subject to 
the claims of Texas, the validity and extent of which were to be left to 
the decision of the supreme court. The debate was continued till near 
the close of the session, without efi'ecting the passage of the bill. 

In the house, on the 20th of December, 1848, Mr. Smith, of Indiana, 
reported a bill to establish the territorial government of Upper California. 
This bill provided a territorial government of the highest class : A gov- 
ernor, appointed by the president and senate ; a legislature, composed 
of a council and house of representatives ; and the necessary courts of 
justice. It embraced the anti-slaverv ordinance of 1787. The bill was 



890 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

under debate till within a few days of tlie close of the session. Several 
motions had been made to strike out the restrictive clause, but without 
success. 

On the 27th of February, the question came up on a substitute pre- 
viously offered by Mr. Preston, of Virginia, proposing to include all the 
territory ceded by Mexico, and to erect the same into a state. Mr. Col- 
lins moved as an amendment the anti-slavery proviso, which was adopted, 
91 to 87. Mr. Preston being asked whether the bill embraced the 
country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, declined making any 
explanations. Mr. Greeley, of New York, moved an additional section, 
providing that the state to be formed should include the territory east 
of the Rio Grande, and within certain described boundtries, (being the 
territory of New Mexico.) 

Mr. Kaufman, of Texas, inquired of the gentleman from New York, 
whether he wanted to steal land enough from Texas for his Fourierite bill 
to operate upon — [referring to a bill introduced by Mr. Greeley, proposing 
to give, on certain conditions, limited quantities of the public lands to 
actual settlers and cultivators.] Mr. Greeley replied, that it did not 
become the representative from Texas to talk about laud-stealing ; and 
proceeded to advocate his amendment. The bill, by leaving the boun- 
dary undefined, virtually surrendered a large part of New Mexico to the 
dominion of Texas. 

The object of Mr. Greeley's proposition was to protect the people of 
New Mexico, who had protested against being subjected to the rule of 
Texas. If it should form a part of Texas, it would be certain to fall 
under the dominion of slavery ; if attached to the proposed state, there 
was at least a strong probability that it would continue free territory. 
The amendment was rejected : ayes, 59 ; noes, 63. 

Other amendments were offered and withdrawn ; and the bill was 
passed, with the proviso clause, 126 to 87. The bill was sent to the 
senate, and immediately referred to the committee on territories. Mr. 
Douglas, the chairman, on the last day of the session, stated that he had 
been unable to get a meeting of the committee to consider this bill, and 
moved that the committee be discharged from its farther consideration, 
•which wa,s done. Mr, Douglas then endeavored to bring the house to 
act upon the subject without a report from the committee ; there being 
a pressing necessity for giving to the people of California some other 
government than that to which they were now subject. lie therefore 
made a motion to postpone prior orders to take up the '"allfornia bill ^ 
but the motion was negatived. 

After this, the question of territorial government came up again in 
the shape of an amendment to the civil and diplomatic ai^proprlation bill 



DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR. 891 

The proposition was to authorize the president to hold possession of the 
acquired territory, and to employ, for this purpose, if necessary, a part of 
the army and navy. And, until congress should have an opportunity, at 
the next session, of providing for the government of the territory, the 
existing (that is, Mexican) laws should be observed, the civil and judi- 
cial authorities heretofore exercised, to be vested in persons appointed 
by the president. No martial law was to be declared, nor military courts 
established, except ordinary courts martial for the trial of persons 
belonging to the army or navy. 

This amendment came to the senate from the house, being an amend- 
ment there made to an amendment to the appropriation bill above men- 
tioned, which had been sent to the house for concurrence. When the 
hour of twelve arrived, several senators, considering the session as 
having expired, declined participating farther in the proceedings. The 
debate, however, proceeded for several hours, when fears were entertained 
that the whole appropriation would be lost if the discussion were not 
speedily closed. Mr. Webster, disposed to disencumber the bill from 
this California amendment, said he was willing to withdraw his motion 
to concur in the house amendment, if gentlemen would then move to 
recede from the senate's own amendment, and let the bill pass as a mere 
appropriation bill. 

The question then arose, whether it was not necessary first to vote 
upon the motion to concur — which was debated for some time. Mr. 
Douglas contended that the motion to concur took the precedence, and 
renewed that motion. It was decided, however, that the motion to 
recede had precedence, and that if it prevailed, the bill would be freed 
from all amendments. The question on receding was then taken, and 
carried, 38 to 7. So the appropriation bill was passed ; but no govern 
ment was provided for California. 

At this session was established a new executive department, styled 
the "Department of the Interior," or home department, the head officer 
of which, called secretary of the interior, is also a member of the cabi- 
net. The increase of business of the other departments had rendered 
the establishment of a new department necessary. To this new officer 
were assigned the supervision of the office of commissioner of patents, 
formerly exercised by the secretary of state; certain duties in relation 
to the general land-office, formerly performed by the secretary of the 
treasury ; supervisory powers relating to the acts of the commissioner 
of Indian affairs, previously exercised by the secretary of war ; also 
similar powers in relation to the acts of commissioner of pensions, for- 
merly exercised by the secretaries of war and the navy. Certain other 
duties of the heads of the treasury and state departments were devolved 
Jipon this new department. 



892 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



CHAPTER LXII. 

INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT TAYLOR. CONTEST FOR THE CHOICE 0¥ 

SPEAKER. THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 

General Zachary Taylor was inaugurated as president of the 
United States, the 5th of March, 1849, (the 4th happening that year on 
Sunday.) The oath of office having been administered by Chief Justice 
Taney, the president delivered his inaugural address in the presence of 
a dense crowd of spectators. The address was a brief one, and, as 
regards the sentiments it expressed, considered unobjectionable. It 
partook much of the character of the numerous letters he had written 
previously to his election. He promised to make the constitution his 
guide in the discharge of his duties ; looking for the interpretation of 
that instrument to the decisions of the judicial tribunals established by 
its authority, and following the example of the early presidents, especially 
of him who was entitled " the Father of his country." He repeated 
the assurance so frequently expressed before, that his administration 
" would be devoted to the welfare of the whole country, and not to the 
support of any particular section, or merely local interest." In the 
exercise of the appointing power, he would " make honesty, capacity, 
and fidelity indispensable prerequisites to the disposal of office." He 
would also favor measures " to secure encouragement and protection 
to the great interests of agriculture, commerce and manufactures, to 
improve our rivers and harbors, to provide for the speedy extinguish- 
ment of the public debt, to enforce a strict accountability on the part 
of all officers of the government, and the utmost economy in all public 
expenditures." He also indicated a purpose not to endeavor to exert 
any personal influence in controlling the action of congress. 

President Taylor selected for his cabinet officers the following : John 
M. Clayton, of Delaware, secretary of state ; William M. Meredith, of 
Pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury ; Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, secre- 
tary of the interior ; George W. Crawford, of Georgia, secretary of war; 
William B. Preston, of Virginia, secretary of the navy; Jacob Colla- 
mer, of Vermont, postmaster-general; Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, 
attorney -general. 

The 31st congress commenced its 1st session December 3d, 1849, and 
continued the same until the 30th of September, 1850, a period of 
nearly ten months. Much time was spent at the commencement in 
unsuccessful balloting for speaker. The contest was chiefly between 



CONTEST FOR THE CHOICE OF SPEAKER. 893 

Robert C. Winthrop, whig, speakei of the late congress, and Howell 
Cobb, of Georgia, democrat. Each received, for several days, on dif- 
ferent ballots, a plurality of from one to ten votes. The cause of the 
protracted balloting was the scattering of votes upon other candidates. 
The " free soil" democrats, unwilling to vote for a speaker so thoroughly 
pro-slavery as Mr. Cobb, cast their votes for Mr. Wilmot, as did also 
Mr. Giddings and several other free soil whigs, who considered Mr. 
Winthrop as having been too favorable toward the friends of slavery, 
during his speakership, in the appointment of committees. Mr. Win- 
throp also lost the votes of five southern whigs, Messrs. Toombs, 
Stephens, and Owen, of Georgia, Cabell, of Florida, and Morton, of 
Virginia, who refused to vote for Mr. Winthrop without a pledge against 
the Wilmot proviso. 

After the first three days, the vote for Mr. Winthrop ranged from 100 
to 103, while that for Mr. Cobb rapidly diminished, being at one time 
only five votes ; the democrats having divided their votes upon other 
candidates. On one ballot, the highest vote given for a democratic can- 
didate was forty-eight. On the thirty-second trial, Mr. Brown, of 
Indiana, was taken up as a democratic candidate, and received 53 votes, 
being a large plurality of the democratic vote. Mi'. Brown's vote 
rapidly increased, until he received, on the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth 
ballots, 109 votes; Mr. Winthrop, 100 and 101. Mr. Winthrop, desi- 
rous of terminating the contest, requested his friends to concentrate 
their efforts on some other candidate. On the next ballot, Mr. Brown 
received 1 12 votes ; the whig vote was much scattered, the highest num- 
ber given for any one being 26 for Mr. Duer, of New York. 

Mr. Stanly, of North Carolina, moved a joint committee of three 
from each of the two principal parties to confer relative to the choice of 
proper ofl&cers of the house. During the discussion of this resolution, 
the fact was elicited, that the high vote given to Mr. Brown had been 
obtained by a private pledge, in a correspondence with Mr. Wilmot, that 
he would, if elected speaker, " constitute the committees on the District 
of Columbia, on territories, and on the judiciary, in such manner as 
should be satisfactory to him (Mr. Wilmot) and his friends." Mr. 
Brown then withdrew his name, being unwilling to occupy the chair 
under circumstances in which his action would be liable to misrepresen- 
tation. The fortieth ballot was scattered upon not less than thirty can- 
didates, of whom those receiving the highest number of votes, were 
Mr. Winthrop, (59,) and Mr. Cobb, (40.) Mr. Boyd, of Kentucky, 
then became the leading candidate. Messrs. Cobb and Winthrop were 
subsequently returned to their original positions, each having received, 
on the sixty second ballot, 97 votes. In pursuance of a previous agree- 



89i THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

ment, it was now determined to terminate the contest by a plurality 
vote; and on the next ballot, Mr. Cobb received 102 votes, and Mr. 
Winthrop 99 ; scattering 20 ; of which Mr. Wilmot received 8. On 
motion of Mr. Stanly, Mr. Cobb was declared duly elected. 

On Monday, the 24th, the message of President Taylor was commu- 
nicated to both houses. The expenses of the Mexican war and treaty 
had occasioned a deficit in the treasury ; to cover which, he recommended 
a resort to loans. He also recommended a revision of the tariflf with a 
view to the augmentation of the revenue. He did not doubt the right 
or duty of congress to encourage domestic industry, the source of 
national as well as individual prosperity. He recommended the adop- 
tion of a system of specific duties, as best adapted to this object, as well 
as the augmentation of the revenue, and the prevention of frauds. He 
submitted to the wisdom of congress the question of the continuance of 
the sub-treasury system. If continued, it needed important modifica- 
tions. 

He referred to the new territories. The people of California, impelled 
by the necessities of their political condition, were forming a constitu- 
tion and state government, and would probably soon apply for admis- 
sion as a state. If their constitution should be conformable to the con- 
stitution of the United States, he recommended the admission. The 
people of New Mexico, also, it was believed, would at an early period 
apply for admission ; and he recommended that congress should await 
the action of the people themselves in forming constitutions preparatory 
to the admission of California and New Mexico. This, he believed, 
would avoid all causes of uneasiness, and preserve confidence and kind 
feeling. Congress should abstain from the introduction of those excit- 
ing topics of a sectional character which had produced painful appre- 
hensions in the public mind. Various other subjects were briefly and 
properly noticed in the message. 

This session of congress was preeminently distinguished for the char- 
acter of its legislation. Its principal business related to the territorial 
question, the admission of California, and other matters relating to or 
involving the question of slavery, resulting in another and a most sin- 
gular compromise. 

Various propositions were originated in both houses, in relation to the 
government of the acquired territory. In the senate, Mr. Foote, of 
Mississippi, introduced a bill for organizing territorial governments, in 
California, Deseret, and New Mexico; and to enable the people of 
Jacinto, Texas consenting, to form a state constitution and state gov.ern- 
ment, and for admitting each state into the union, on an equal footing 
with the original states A memorial was received from the provisional 



CLAY S COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS. 895 

government of the people of Deseret, accompanied by a constitution and 
form of state government, asking admission as a state, and if that 
request should be denied, then to have a territorial government. 

On the 29th of January, 1850, Mr Clay submitted a series of reso- 
lutions, proposing an amicable arrangement of the whole slavery contro- 
versy. The substance of these resolutions, eight in number, was as 
follows : 

1. California, with suitable boundaries, ought to be admitted as a 
state without restriction in respect to slavery. 

2. As slavery was not likely to be introduced into any of the territory 
acquired from Mexico, appropriate governments ought to be established 
in all the territory not assigned to the state of California, without 
restriction as to slavery. 

3. The western boundary of Texas should be fixed so as not to include 
any portion of New Mexico. 

4. The United States proposed to pay the debt of Texas, contracted 
prior to annexation, and for which the duties on imports were pledged, 
not exceeding $ , on condition that the duties be thereafter pay- 
able to the United States, and that Texas relinquish all claim to any 
part of New Mexico. 

5. It was inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; 
whilst it exists in the state of Maryland, without consent of the people 
of that state and of the District, and without just compensation of the 
owners of the slaves. 

6. It was expedient to prohibit the slave trade within the District. 

7. More efi"ectual provision ought to Jie made for the restitution of 
fugitive slaves. 

8. Congress had no power to prohibit the trade in slaves between the 
slaveholdiiig states. 

Mr. Rusk, of Texas, was unwilling that half of that state should be 
taken to make a peace-oflfering to the spirit of encroachment on the con- 
stitutional rights of one-half of the union. 

Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, brought a long array of objections against 
the resolutions. They only declared it inexpedient to abolish slavery in 
the district, thus implying that congress had the power ^ which he denied. 
They asserted that slavery did not now exist in the acquired territory ; 
whereas, he thought the acquisition carried with it the constitution and 
all its guaranties to that territory, admitting into it the slaveholder with 
his slaves. Whether slavery was or was not likely to be carried thither, 
was a proposition too uncertain to be positively affirmed. They drew 
into question the title of Texas to a part of her territory. They assumed 
»tate debts, a j;riiiciple to which he was opposed. If Texan soil was to 



896 THE AMEPaCAN STATESMAN. 

be bought, let it be paid for in money. To the abolition of the slave 
trade in the district, he did not object, provided it was done delicately 
and judiciously, and was not a concession to menaces or demands of fac- 
tionists or fanatics. Provisions for restoring fugitives, and for establish- 
ing territorial governments without restriction as to slavery, he approved. 
If all other questions relating to slavery could be satisfactorily adjusted, 
all California above 36 degrees and 30 minutes might be admitted into 
the union, provided a new state, south of that line, could be laid off to 
balance it. 

The resolutions of Mr. Clay were warmly opposed by southern sena- 
tors, as making no concession to the south — as being no compromise at • 
all. They objected to the admission of California, embracing all our 
possessions on the Pacific coast, with a provision prohibiting slavery. 
The declaration that slavery did not exist in New Mexico and Deseret, 
precluded its admission there, just as effectually as if it were positively 
affirmed that slavery should be prohibited. Scarcely a single resolution 
•was satisfactory to southern senators. 

Mr. Benton said, it had been affirmed and denied that slavery had 
been abolished in Mexico. He affirmed its abolition, and read copious 
extracts from the laws and constitution of Mexico, in proof of the affir- 
mation. Slavery having been abolished by Mexican law before we 
acquired the countries, the Wilmot proviso in relation to these countries 
was a thing of nothing — an empty provision. He said also, that African 
slavery never had existed in Mexico in the form in which it existed in 
the states of this union ; and that, if the Mexican law was now in force 
in New Mexico and California^ no slaveholder from the union would 
carry a slave thither, except to set him free. The policy of this country 
was to discourage emancipation ; that of Mexico had been to promote it. 
This was shown by numerous quotations of the laws of Mexico. Slavery 
was defined by Spanish law to be " the condition of a man who is the 
property of another against natural right." Therefore, not being 
derived from nature, or divine law, but existing only by positive enact- 
ment, it had no countenance from Spanish law. He affirmed these three 
points : 1. Slavery was abolished in California and New Mexico before 
we got them. 2. Even if not abolished, no person would carry a slave 
to those countries to be held under such law. 3. Slavery could not 
exist there, except by positive law yet to be passed. According to this 
exposition, the proviso would have no more effect there than a piece of 
blank paper pasted on the statute book. 

Mr. Calhoun said tbe union was in danger. The cause of this danger 
was the discontent at the south. And what was the cause of this dis- 
content ? It was found in the belief which prevailed among them that 



COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS CALHOtiN. 897 

they could not, consistently with honor and safety, remain in the union. 
And what had caused this belief ? One of the causes was the long-con- 
tinued agitation of the slave question at the north, and the many aggres- 
sions they had made on the rights of the south. But the primary cause 
was in the fact, that the equilibrium between the two sections at the 
time of the adoption of the constitution had been destroyed. The first 
of the series of acts by which this had been done, was the ordinance of 
1787, by which the south had been excluded from all the north-western 
region. The next was the Missouri compromise, excluding them from 
all the Louisiana territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, except the 
state of Missouri; in all 1,238,025 square miles, leaving to the south 
the southern portion of the original Louisiana territory, with Florida ; 
to which had since been added the territory acquired with Texas ; making 
in all but 609,023 miles. And now the north was endeavoring to appro- 
priate to herself the territory recently acquired from Mexico, adding 
526,078 miles to the territory from which the south was if possible to 
be excluded. Another cause of the destruction of this equilibrium was 
our system of revenue, (the tariff,-) the duties falling mainly upon the 
southern portion of the union, as being the greatest exporting states, 
while more than a due proportion of Lhe revenue had been disbursed at 
the north. 

But, said Mr. Calhoun, while these measures were destroying the 
equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the government was 
leading to a radical change in ite character. It was maintained, that 
the government itself had the right to decide, in the last resort, as to the 
extent of its powers, and to resort to force to maintain the power it claimed. 
[He doubtless had in his mind the action of the general government in 
1832, in providing for enforcing the collection of the revenue in South 
Carolina, while the authorities of that state claimed the right to resist.] 
The doctrines of Gen. Jackson's proclamation, subsequently asserted and 
maintained by Mr. Madison, the leading framer and expounder of the 
constitution, were the doctrines which, if carried out, would change the 
character of the government, from a federal republic, as it came from the 
hands of its framers, into a great national consolidated democracy. 

Mr. Calhoun also spoke of the anti-slavery agitation, which, if not 
arrested, would destroy the union ; and he passed a censure upon 
congress for receiving abolition petitions. Had congress in the begin- 
ning adopted the course which he had advocated, which was to refuse to 
take jurisdiction, by the united voice of all parties, the agitation would 
have been prevented. He charged the north with false professions of 
devotion to the union, and with having violated the constitution. Acts 
had been passed in northern states to set aside and annul the clause of 

57 



pyiC THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the constitution which provides for delivering up fugitive slaves. The 
agitation of the slavery question, with the avowed purpose of abolishing 
slavery in the states, was another violation of the constitution. And 
during the fifteen years of this agitation, in not a single instance had 
the people of the north denounced these agitators. How then could 
their professions of devotion to the union be sincere ? 

Mr. C. disapproved both the plan of Mr. Clay and that of president 
Taylor, as incapable of saving the union. He would pass by the former 
without remark, as Mr. Clay had been replied to by several senators. 
The executive plan could not save the union, because it could not satisfy 
the south that it could safely or honorably remain in the union. It was 
a modification of the Wilmot proviso, proposing to effect the same 
object, the exclusion of the south from the new territory. The executive 
proviso was more objectionable than the Wilmot. Both inflicted a 
dangerous wound upon the constitution, by depriving the southern states 
of equal rights, as joint partners, in these territories; but the former 
inflicted others equally great. It claimed for the inhabitants the right 
to legislate for the territories, which belonged to congress. The 
assumption of this right was utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, and 
without example. Under this assumed right, the people of California 
had formed a constitution and a state government, and appointed sena- 
tors and representatives. If the people, as ajlventurers, had conquered 
the territory and established their independence, the sovereignty of the 
country would have been vested in them. In that case, they would have 
had the right to form a state government ; and afterward they might 
have applied to congress for admission into the union. But the United 
States had conquered and acquired California; therefore to them 
belonged the sovereignty, and the powers of government over the terri- 
tory. Michigan was the first case of departure from the uniform rule 
of acting. Hers, however, was a slight departure from established 
usage. The ordinance of 1787 secured to her the right of becoming a 
state when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. Congress delayed 
taking the census. The people became impatient ; and after her popu- 
lation had increased to twice that number, they formed a constitution 
without waiting for the taking of the census ; and congress waived the 
omission, as there was no doubt of the requisite number of inhabitants. 
In other cases there had existed territorial governments. 

It will be readily inferred from these views of Mr. Calhoun, that he 
was in favor of placing California and other part.« of the territory in the 
territorial condition, under a government established by congress, 
before their admission as states. 

Having shown how the union could not be saved, he then proceeded 



COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS WEBSTER. 899 

to answer the question how it could be saved. There was but one way 
certain. Justice must be done to the south, by a full and final settle- 
ment of all the questions at issue. The north must concede to the south 
an equal right to the acquired territory, and fulfill the stipulations res- 
pecting fugitive slaves ; must cease to agitate the slave question, and 
join in an amendment of the constitution, restoring to the south the 
power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between 
the two sections had been destroyed by the action of the government. 

Mr. Webster, on the 7th of March, spoke at length on the resolu- 
tions of Mr. Clay, and in reply to Mr. Calhoun. In the course of his 
history of the slave question in this country, he remarked, that a change 
had taken place since the time of the adoption of the constitution. 
Both sections then held slavery to be equally an evil, moral and politi- 
cal. It was inhuman and cruel ; it weakened the social fabric, and ren- 
dered labor less productive. The eminent men of the south then held 
it to be an evil, a blight, a scourge, and a curse. The framers of the 
constitution, in considering how to deal with it, concluded that it could 
not be continued if the importation of slaves should cease. The prohi- 
bition of the importation after twenty years was proposed ; a term which 
some southern gentlemen, Mr. Madison, for one, thought too long. 
The word " slaves" was not allowed in the constitution ; Mr. Madison 
was opposed to it ; he did not wish to see it recognized in that instru- 
ment, that there could be property in men. The ordinance of 1787 also 
received the unanimous support of the south ; a measure which Mr. 
Calhoun had said was the first in a series of measures which had enfee- 
bled that section. 

Soon after this, the age of cotton came. The south wanted land for 
its cultivation. Mr. Calhoun had observed that there had always been 
a majority in favor of the north. If so, the north had acted very libe- 
rally or very weakly ; for they had seldom exercised their power. The 
truth was, the general lead in politics for three-fourths of the time had been 
southern lead. In 1802, a great cotton region, now embracing all Ala- 
bama, had been obtained from Georgia by the general government. In 
1803, Louisiana was purchased, out of which several large slaveholding 
states had been formed. In 1819, Florida was ceded, which also had 
come in as slave territory. And lastly, Texas — great, vast, illimitable 
Texas, had been admitted as a slave state. In this, the senator himself, 
as secretary of state, and the late secretary of the treasury, then sena- 
tor, had taken the lead. They had done their work thoroughly ; having 
procured a stipulation for four new states to be formed out of that state; 
and all south of the line of 36° 30' might be admitted with slavery. 
Even New England had aided in this measure. Three-fourths of liberty 



900 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

loving Connecticut in the other house, and one-half in this, had sup 
ported it. And it had one vote from each of the states of Massachusetts 
and Maine. 

A part of the remainder of Mr. Webster's speech has been highly dis- 
approved by some of kis former friends at the north, as pro-slavery, and 
inconsistent with his sentiments as previously expressed on the subject. 
Mr. Webster attributed any supposed discrepancy between his present 
and former sentiments to a change in the state of the question. He had 
in 1836 and 1837 publicly expressed himself warmly against the admis- 
sion of Texas and the extension of slavery. He had nothing to add to, 
or take back from those sentiments. In 1847, he had made a speech at 
a whig state convention at Springfield, Massachusetts, in which he said : 

" We hear much just now of ^panacea for the dangers and evils of 
slavery and slave annexation, which they call the ' Wilmot proviso.' 
This certainly is a just sentiment, but it is not a sentiment to found any 
new party upon. It is not a sentiment on which Massachusetts whigs 
differ. There is not a man in this hall who holds to it more firmly than 
I do, nor one who adheres to it more than another. 

" I feel some little interest in this matter, sir. Did not I commit 
myself in 1838 to the whole doctrine, fully, entirely? And I must be 
permitted to say, that I can not quite consent that more recent discov- 
erers should claim the merit, and take out a patent. I deny the priority 
of their invention. Allow me to say, sir, it is not their thunder. * * * 
We are to use the first, and last, and every occasion which ofiiers, to 
oppose the extension of the slave power." 

Mr. Webster said he had repeatedly expressed the determination to 
vote for no acquisition, or cession, or annexation, believing we had ter- 
ritory enough. But Texas was now in with all her territories, as a slave 
state, with a pledge that, if divided into many states, those south of 
36° 30' might come in as slave states ; and he, for one, meant to fulfill 
the obligation. As to California and New Mexico, he held that slavery 
was efi"ectually excluded from those territories by a law even superior to 
that which admits and sanctions it in Texas — he meant the law of 
nature. The physical geography of the country would forever exclude 
African slavery there ; and it needed not the application of a proviso. 
If the question was now before the senate, he would not vote to add a 
prohibition — to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor reenact the will of 
God. If they were making a government for New Mexico, and a Wil- 
mot proviso were proposed, he would treat it as Mr. Polk had treated it 
in the Oregon bill. Mr. Polk was opposed to it ; but some government 
was necessary, and he signed the bill, knowing that the proviso was 
entirely nugatory. 



COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS WEBSTER. 90] 

Both the north and the south had grievances. The south justly com- 
plained that individuals and legislatures of the north refused to perform 
their constitutional duties in regard to returning fugitive slaves. Mem- 
bers of northern legislatures were bound by oath to support the consti- 
tution of the United States; and the clause requiring the delivery of 
fugitive slaves was as binding as any other. Complaints had also been 
made against certain resolutions emanating from legislatures at the north 
on the subject of slavery in the district, and sometimes even in regard 
to its abolition in the states. Abolition societies were another subject 
of complaint. These societies had done nothing useful ; but they had 
produced mischief by their interference with the south. He referred to 
the debate in the Virginia legislature in 1832, when the subject of 
gradual abolition was freely discussed. But since the agitation of this 
question, the bonds of the slave had been more firmly riveted. Again, 
the violence of the press was complained of But wherever the freedom 
of the press existed, there always would be foolish and violent para- 
graphs, as there were foolish and violent speeches in both houses of con- 
gress. He thought, however, the north had cause for the same com- 
plaint of the south. But of these grievances of the south, one only 
was within the redress 6f the government ; that was the want of proper 
regard to the constitutional injunction for the delivery of fugitive slaves. 

The north complained of the south, that, when the former, in adopt- 
ing the constitution, recognized the right of representation of the 
slaves, it was under a state of sentiment different from that which now 
existed. It was generally hoped and believed, that the institution would 
be gradually extinguished ; instead of which, it was now to be cherished, , 
and preserved, and extended ; and for this purpose, the south was con- 
stantly demanding new territory. A southern senator had said, that the 
condition of the slaves was preferable to that of the laboring population 
of the north. Said Mr. Webster: "Who are the north? Five-sixths 
of the whole property of the north is in the hands of laborers, who cul- 
tivate their own farms, educate their children, and provide the means 
of independence. Those who were not freeholders, earned wages, which, 
as they accumulated, were turned into capital. 

Another grievance at the north was, that their free colored citizens 
employed on vessels arriving at southern ports, were taken on shore by 
the municipal authority, and imprisoned till the vessel was ready to sail. 
This was inconvenient in practice ; and was deemed unjustifiable, oppres- 
sive, and unconstitutional. It was a great grievance. So far as these 
grievances had their foundation in matters of. law, they could and ought 
to be redressed ; and so far as they rested in matters of opinion, in 
mutual crimination and recrimination, we could only endeavor to allay 



902 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling between the south and the 
north. 

Mr. Webster expressed great pain at hearing secession spoken of aa 
a possible event. Said he : " Secession ! Peaceable secession ! Sir, 
your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. Who is so 
foolish — I beg every body's pardon — as to expect to see any such thing ? 
There could be no such thing as peaceable secession — a concurrent agree- 
ment of the members of this great republic to separate ? Where is the 
line to be drawn ? What states are to secede ? Where is the flag of 
the republic to remain ? What is to become of the army ? — of the 
navy ? — of the public lands ? How is each of the states to defend 
itself? * * * To break up this great government! to dismember 
this great country ! to astonish Europe with an act of folly, such as 
Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any government ! No, 
sir ! no, sir ! There will be no secession. Gentlemen are not serious 
when they talk of secession." 

In regard to Texas, he said, if she should please to cede to the United 
States any portion of her territory adjacent to New Mexico, north of 
34 degrees, to be formed into a free state, for a fair equivalent in money, 
or in the payment of her debt, he would concur in the measure. He 
was willing also to appropriate the proceeds of the public lands to defray 
the expense of promoting the colonization of free colored persons in any 
part of the world, if the south would propose such a scheme. 

On the loth of February, 1850, the president transmitted to con- 
gress, by message, a copy of the constitution of California. Mr. Doug- 
las moved that the message and accompanying documents be referred ti 
the committee on territories. Mr. Foote moved their reference to a. 
special committee of thirteen, " whose duty it should be to consider 
them, together with the various other propositions before the senate on 
the same subject, in connection with the question of domestic slavery, 
and to report a plan for the definitive settlement of the present unhappy 
controversy, and rescue from impending perils the sacred union itself." 

Mr. Clay thought it improper to throw all these subjects before one 
committee to be acted on together. He wished the question of the ad- 
mission of California kept separate and distinct. Three or four mem- 
bers of congress had come all the way from the Pacific, with a constitu- 
tion of a state asking admission into the union ; and it was not right 
to subject them to the delay which would result from the combination 
of all these subjects. After some discussion, Mr. Benton, on the 14th, 
moved to amend Mr. Douglas' motion, by adding, " with instructions 
to report a bill for the admission of the state of California, unconnected 
with any other subject." 



bell's compromise resolutions. 90S 

Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, was opposed to the admission of 
California as a state, organized, as she had been, without the previous 
authority of congress. Other new states had first been organized as terri- 
tbries. A few other territories, he admitted, had moved in the matter 
of their admission, and formed state constitutions, without authority 
from congress ; but the cases were different. He was inclined to adhero 
t6 established precedents. 

Mr. Hale said, as regarded one step in the progress of this question, 
the senate was not without precedents. It might produce a smile to 
mention them: they were "Texas" and "Oregon." They went to- 
gether through the presidential election like the Siamese twins. When 
these questions came into congress to be settled, the two loving sisters 
bad to be separated; and Oregon had to wait in the cold latitude of 
54° 40', until Texas had been disposed of. He was for first taking 
care of California by herself, and giving her the entertainment to which 
she was entitled ; then they could turn their attention to New Mexico, 
and dispose of her ; then to Deseret ; and then to San Jacinto, because 
this came next in order. 

Mr. Seward was in favor of the admission of California, disconnected 
from all other questions ; and, in a speech of great length, exprt^ssed 
his views upon the several topics embraced in the debate, as well as 
upon the question of slavery itself. Copious extracts from the speech 
will constitute a material part of the next chapter. 

Among the numerous propositions to dispose of the territorial and 
slavery questions, in both houses, most of which we can not notice, was 
a series of resolutions, nine in number, offered in the senate, on the 
28th of February, by Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, providing for the future 
division of Texas, and the admission of the different portions as states. 
Also, by consent of Texas, that portion of lands claimed by Texas, lying 
west of the Colorado, and north of the 42d degree of latitude, was to 

be ceded to the United States for a sum not exceeding millions 

of dollars. California was to be admitted as a state; but in future, the 
formation of state constitutions by the inhabitants of the territories 
was to be regulated by law; and the inhabitants were to have power to 
settle and adjust all questions of internal state policy, (including, of 
course, the question of slavery.) The committee on territories to be 
instructed to bring in a bill in conformity with the spirit of the reso- 
lutions. 

On the 17th of April, pursuant to a proposition of Mr. Foote, pre- 
viously made, a select committee of thirteen, (Mr. Clay chairman,) was 
elected by the senate, to whom were to be referred the compromise reso- 
lutions of Mr. Bell, in regard to the slave, California, and territorial 



904 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

questions. Seven of the committee were from slave states. On tho 
8th of May, the committee brought in a report. The views and recom- 
mendations which it contained, were recapitulated as follows : 

1. The admission of any new state or states formed out of Texas, to 
be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be re- 
ceived into the union, when it will be the duty of congress fairly and 
faithfully to execute the compact with Texas, by admitting such new 
state or states. 

2. The admission, forthwith, of California into the union, with the 
boundaries which she has proposed. 

3. The establishment of territorial governments, without the Wilmot 
proviso, for New Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory re- 
cently acquired by the United States from Mexico not contained in the 
boundaries of California. 

4. The combination of these two last mentioned measures in the same 
bill. 

5. The establishment of the western and northern boundary of Texas, 
and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with a grant 
to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent ; and the section for that purpose to 
be incorporated in the bill admitting California, and establishing territo- 
rial governments for Utah and New Mexico. 

6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of 
fugitive slaves escaping into the free states. 

7. Slavery not to be abolished in the District of Columbia, but the 
slave trade therein to be prohibited under a heavy penalty. 

The object of grouping together so many different subjects in the 
same report, and the embracing of three — the first three above men- 
tioned — in one bill, was avowedly intended to compel those in favor of 
admitting California as a free state, to vote for the establishment of the 
territorial governments without the proviso. To make the admission 
of a state — a measure to which, of itself, there was no objection — depend 
upon the adoption of others whose success, upon their own merits, is 
ioubtful, is a proposition which, in the abstract, would find few ad- 
vocates. 

The debate on the compromise bill continued in the senate until the 
last day of July, having been, in the mean time, trimmed down by 
amendments, until only a small portion of it remained. From the at- 
tempt to carry through so many measures in one bill, the bill had ob- 
tained the name of " the omnibus." The other parts of the bill hav- 
ing been successively dropped, it passed the senate only as " a bill to 
provide for the territorial government of Utah." It was ordered to a 
third reading, by a vote of 32 to 18, and subsequently passed. It waa 



TEXAS BOUNDARY BENTON. 905 

gent the next day to the house, where its announcement was received 
with much merriment ; insomuch that the interposition of the speaker 
became necessary to restore order. The dismemberment of the bill 
was humorously called "' upsetting the omnibus." 

Subsequently, however, the other portions of the bill were pressed 
in separate bills. California was admitted ; a territorial government 
bill for New Mexico was passed ; and a bill establishing the boundary 
of Texas. By the offer of $10,000,000, Texas was induced to relinquish 
her claims to New Mexico. The bill also to abolish the slave trade in 
the District of Columbia, and the fugitive slave law, were passed, and 
became laws. 

Senators Benton and Seward were supposed to have contributed much 
to the defeat of the committee's bill. Mr. Benton exposed the injustice 
not to say fraud, of the committee, which seems to have been covered 
in that part of the bill which proposed to settle the boundary of Texas. 
On the 15th of July, he moved an amendment to that part of the bill, 
greatly reducing the territory assigned to Texas by the committee. 
He contended that the committee gave Texas some 70,000 square miles 
of the territory of New Mexico. lie charged upon the committee a 
design to cede a part of New Mexico to Texas, instead of ascertaining 
the true line between them ; and he reviewed their report to sustain 
the charge. He also referred to a new map of the state, the accuracy 
of which had been certified by both the senators of that state. Rusk and 
Houston, and the two representatives, Kaufman and Pilsbury, besides 
several state ofiicers, one of whom was the secretary of state. The 
map was compiled in 1848, the very date of the treaty with Mexico. 
Holding up the map, he said : " Look at it — it is large enough to be 
seen across the chamber, and shows objects with sufficient distinctness 
to be observed by all. Its western limit is the longitude of 102! the 
very limit I propose, as if I had made the map myself to suit my bill. 
* * * Behold it! There is 102 cutting the long blank 
space marked El Llano Estacado, the staked plain ; and here are all 
the breaks in the eastern declivity of that long, broad, and sterile table 
land, from which issue the thousand little streams which, taking their 
course toward the rising sun, and gathering themselves into large chan- 
nels, give birth to all the beautiful rivers of Texas — the Colorado, the 
Brazos, the Nueces, and the southern forks of the Bed river. There 
they all are ! Everything that is Texan by nature or by law ! Rivers, 
towns, counties, all to the east of 102, and all separated from New 
Mexico by the high cksert plain which marks the structure of the 
country and divides the systems of rivers and of lands from each 
other." 



906 THE AMERICAN .TATESMAN. 

Mr. B. denounced, in strong terms, the report of the committee, 
because in it they express no opinion at all. Adopting neither the opin- 
ion of those who think the state bounded bj the Nueces, nor that of those 
who think it extends to the Rio Grande, without any regard to what is 
true or legitimate, they cut New Mexico in two, and give one-half of it 
to Texas. " Cutting instead of untying the Grordian knot, they take a 
new course across the Puercos, beginning half way up the Del Norte, cut 
New Mexico in two just below the hips, giving the lower half to Texas, 
leaving New Mexico to stump it about as best she can without feet or 
legs. * * * They give 70,000 square miles to Texas, and offer her 
$10,000,000 to accept it!" 

According to the committee's report, 70,000 square miles were to be 
taken from New Mexico, and added to Texas ; and 75,000 were to be 
ceded by Texas to the United States. The territory given to Texas 
was said to be far more valuable than that which the United States were 
to receive. Mr. Benton objected to giving two equivalents — an equiva- 
lent in laud and another in money — for what we received of Texas. He 
objected to accepting a cession of New Mexico from Texas, first, because 
the United States herself had a claim to it, and had actual possession ; 
and secondly, because the acceptance of &uch a cession would admit the 
title of Texas to all New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, and so raiso 
questions to disturb both New Mexico and the United States ; and thirdly, 
because we offered more valuable territory than we were to receive, and 
then were to pay the value of what we received, into the bargain, and 
which was ours before. 

Mr. Rusk, in reply to Mr. Benton, admitted the map to be correct, 
but denied that it limited Texas to the boundaries stated by Mr. B. 
He said he was willing to settle the controversy, by an act declaring the 
boundaries of Texas to be as laid down on this map, certified by himself 
and Gen. Houston, and others : and he proceeded to advocate the right 
of Texas to all she claimed. 

Mr. Clay concurred with Mr. Rusk in relation to the true boundary, 
and referred to authorities in support of the claims of Texas, and of the 
bill reported by the committee. He read from Mr. Benton's speech the 
following remark, to which he took strong exceptions : " The bill is 
caught, flagrante delicto — taken in the fact — seized by the throat and 
held up to public view — [and here Mr. B. :s represented by the reporter 
as grappling the bill and holding it up] — in the very act of perpetrating 
its crime, in the very act oi auctioneering for votes to pass itself.'''' Mr. 
Clay thought such language inadmissible upon the floor of the senate. 
" Auctioneering for votes to carry the bill !" Who auctioneered ? the 
bill, or the senate, or the committee ? If the senator meant that it was 



TEXAS BOUNDARY- — BENTON. 907 

the intention of the bill to auctioneer for votes to carry it, he (Mr. C. 
repelled the charge as a groundless imputation. It might be said o\ 
every appropriation of money that the object was to bribe, to auctioneer 
for votes, or to purchase votes to carry the appropriation. 

Mr. Clay then requested the secretary to read a bill introduced by Mr. 
Benton himself in January, at the same session, proposing to Texas tho 
reduction of her boundaries, and the cession of her extensive territory, 
for a consideration to be paid her by the United States. In this biU, 
said Mr. C, was the very same language employed by the committeo: 
"A cession," "a ceding;" for which it was proposed to give Texas 
$15,000,000. The proposition made by the senator from Missouri, was 
therefore liable to the same imputation of being intended to auctioneer 
for votes. He considered it a degradation to the body to suppose that 
members could be influenced by an ofier of money in the shape of an 
appropriation for a legitimate purpose. 

Mr. Benton, in reply, said Mr. Clay was mistaken in his geography. 
The United States had not acquired New Mexico by the name of New 
Mexico. Our acquisitions were not limited to New Mexico, but embraced 
all the territory belonging to Mexico on this side of the Bio Grande. 
We took the whole ; and this part of Chihuahua was included in the state 
of Chihuahua as ceded to the United States, as a cession of a part of 
what was the state of Chihuahua, and not a cession of what was a part of 
the state of Texas. And what was it, he asked, that lay between New 
Mexico and Texas ? It was Tamaulipas and Coahuila. He said, Mr. 
C. had occupied himself with the southern line, and had shown the 
northern boundary, and the southern boundary of Chihuahua down to 
Durango ; but he had said not a word about the eastern boundary, which, 
■after all, was the only line in controversy. He denied that his bill and 
that of the committee were identical, as Mr. Clay had stated. The latter 
provided for a mutual cession of territory. The United States ceded to 
Texas all south of the committee's line, and Texas ceded all north of it 
to the United States. But his (Mr. B.'s) bill made no cession to Texas 
at all — not an inch of anything. And in his bill, Texas ceded only such 
territory as belonged to her, exterior to her boundaries, and nothing 
more. It neither made a cession of any part of New Mexico to Texas, 
nor accepted a cession of any part of New Mexico from Texas. 

Mr. Benton charged Mr. Clay with unfairness in his quotation from 
bis (Mr. B.'s) remarks in relation to " auctioneering for votes" to pass 
the compromise bill. He had omitted both what preceded and what fol- 
lowed the words quoted, in respect to which Mr. B. said, if it had been 
read, it would not have inculpated senators, but would have shown that 
the imputation was against the bill and not against the senators. And 
ho challenged Mr. Clay to call him to order. 



908 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Mr. Clay put in writing the offensive words, and sent them to tbo 
ohair. Mr. Benton demanded that the previous and concluding parts 
of the paragraph also be read. He said : 

" The words are expressly confined to the bill and its effect ; and I 
have a right to speak of a measure in whatever terras I please. I have 
nothing to do with the committee. And if it is to be a question between 
gentlemen of a committee and a member who is speaking every time 
that a senator characterizes a measure by its effects, and attributes to it 
injurious or injudicious effects, if that is to be made a question among 
men, then there is an end of all freedom of debate upon any measure. I 
knew perfectly well what I said. I knew that I had nothing to do with 
the committee, but I knew that I had a right to speak of the effect of 
this bill, and I took this bill, sir, not as it concerned Texas, but as it 
concerned other measures which were bound up in the same bill with 
Texas, and whose fate was to depend upon the fate of Texas, and which 
itself was to depend upon money. I saw a shocking enormity resulting 
from the committee's omnibus bill, and was determined to expose it — 
and have done it. 

" The senator from Kentucky has read the bill which I introduced, 
proposing fifteen millions of dollars to Texas. Sir, is that bill mixed up 
with any other measure ? Was anything tacked to that bill ? And was 
any consequence to result to any measure in the world, except to Texas 
herself, from the votes which would be given upon that bill ? Sir, we 
know that in voting upon that bill by itself, senators from Texas would 
vote, and ought to vote according to what was the interest of their state, 
and would hurt no other measure. Senators from Texas would vote, and 
ought to vote, for what they might think would be right and proper and 
necessary to give to Texas, and in so doing it would not affect California, 
New Mexico, or Utah. Mine was a bill by itself, involving no other 
measures ; but here is a conglomerate bill, in which the life of California 
is concerned, on which her admission as a state into this union is made 
dependent upon what happens to Texas. « # # 

'* Hence, Mr. President — and here is the point of all — I say that, in 
a measure so large as one admitting a state into the union, and giving a 
government to territories, these great questions are to be left out 
of view, and made merely subordinate to another question, and that 
'question is to be the sum of money which is to be voted at the last mo- 
ment to another and a different state. There lies the pinch ; there is 
the point of my remarks yesterday — the nerve into which my knife 
entered yesterday, and which the senator from Kentucky so carefully 
abstains from touching to-day. Do we not all know, sir, that on this 
bill; called compromise, the senate is about balanced ? Do we not all 



TEXAS BOUNDARY BENTON. 909 

know that two votes, and they count four — two off and two on — will turn 
the scale, and that they will make decisive the fate of this conglomerated 
bill, and that without the least regard to what is to happen to New 
Mexico or California ? They are all tied together, and the whole bill is 
to pass, or not to pass, precisely according to the amount of money paid 
to Texas. Don't we know this ? Don't we see it ? Does not every 
body see it ? And does it not present one of the most flagrant instances 
of the enormity of joining incongruous matters that the history of all 
legislation has ever presented to the world ? 

*' The senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) is deeply penetrated with a 
sense of injury to himself, the comm.ittee of thirteen, and the senate, 
from what I said yesterday. He characterizes it as an aspersion upon 
them. In that he turns off the contest from the true point. I made no 
allusion to him, or the committee. I spoke of their bill — their omnibus 
bill — and its effect — its shocking, revolting effect. I struck there, and 
I challenge a contest there. # # * 

" I said that those who were anxious for the passage of the whole con- 
glomerated measure, must, upon every principle of human action, vote 
the sum necessary to command the Texas vote — vote the millions so 
carefully concealed here, and so well known elsewhere. It can not be a 
question with them how much it was right and proper to pay to Texas, 
but how much will command the vote of Texas ? To secure the vote 
of Texas on this floor is what they are obliged to do on every principle 
of human action. This is certainly voting on a vicious principle. * * * 
I admit that, by voting to put nothing there, I am voting viciously. 
But where lies the blame ? It lies in the position that I am forced to 
take, in the false position in which I am placed, where I must vote 
money to a third party in order to carry a measure for three other par- 
ties ; I must either sanction a great parliamentary enormity, or rebuke 
it. I will not bring in California by money to Texas. I will not vote 
the money. I will not bid. I shall vote not a farthing to Texas, as 
well because she gets land enough without money, as because of the bill 
itself, and because I believe purity of legislation requires such a bill to 
receive the condemnation of the senate and the country. I shall vote 
nothing. And then what a scene we shall have in the American senate. 
Some voting a high amount to carry the vote of Texas ; some voting a 
low amount in order to prevent it. That is the position, and that is the 
scene which the senate will exhibit; real jockey voting, to command two 
votes, and without the least regard to the amount that ought really to 
be voted ; no party having any regard to what in justice and right 
should be paid to Texas. And why all this ? Because of unparliamen* 
tary tacking ; because of putting incongruous measures together." 



9j^,0 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

In the midst of the discussion of this question, the death of President 
Taylor took place. This event occurred on the 9th of July, 1850, a 
year and four months after his inauguration. The shock upon the pub- 
lic mind produced by this sudden calamity, was similar to that experi- 
enced in 1841, on the occasion of the death of President Harrison. 
Expressions of sincere and deep regret from all parts of the union, bore 
testimony to the high estimation in which Gen. Taylor was held by all 
parties and all classes of the people. On the 10th, Mr. Fillmore, in a mes- 
sage to both houses of congress, and in appropriate terms, announced the 
death of the president, and proposed to take the oath of office as presi- 
dent that day at 12 o'clock, in the presence of both houses of congress. 
Brief eulogies on the late president were pronounced in the senate by 
Messrs. Downs, of Louisiana, Webster, Cass, Pearce, of Maryland, King, 
of Alabama, and Berrien, of Georgia. In the house, the same office was 
performed by Messrs. Conrad, of Louisiana, Winthrop, Baker, of Illi- 
nois, Bayly, of Virginia, Hilliard, of Alabama, John A. King, of New 
York, McLane, of Maryland, and Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky. 

The remains of Gen. Taylor were interred in the congressional burial 
ground at Washington. They were subsequently taken up and conveyed 
to Louisville, Kentucky ; and thence to the place of their final inter- 
ment, seven miles from the city, which had been selected by himself as a 
family burial place. It is upon a farm formerly owned by his father, 
and still owned by the heirs of his deceased brother, Hancock Tay- 
lor, Esq. 

Mr. Fillmore having become president, Mr. King, of Alabama, was 
chosen president of the senate, pro tem.^ July 1 1th. 

A few days afterward, Mr. Fillmore reconstructed the cabinet. Daniel 
Webster was appointed secretary of state ; Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, 
secretary of the treasury ; Charles M. Conrad, of Louisiana, secretary 
of war ; William A. Graham, secretary of the navy ; Alexander H. H. 
Stuart, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the interior; Nathan K. Hall, of 
New York, postmaster -general ; John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, 
attorney-general. 

The passage of the Texan boundary bill was accelerated by a mes- 
sage from the president, (August Gth,) transmitting to the senate a copy 
of a letter from Governor Bell, of Texas, addressed to the late president, 
complaining that the state commissioner, in attempting to extend civil 
jurisdiction over the unorganized counties, had encountered opposition 
from the military officers employed in the service of the United States, 
stationed at Santa Fe. And he wished to be informed whether the issu- 
ing of a proclamation by Col. John Monroe, the civil and military com- 
mander of the territory, had been done under the orders of the govern- 



PASSAGE OF COMPROMISE BILLS. 9|1 

mcnt, or with the approval of tlie president. Gov. Bell was informed 
that, iu November, orders had been given not to thwart any manifesta- 
tions of the people of New Mexico in favor of forming a state constitu 
tion. Such action was a mere nullity until sanctioned by congress, and 
whether approved by congress or not, it could not prejudice the territo- 
rial claims of Texas. The late president, it was believed, had desired 
to manifest no unfriendly attitude or aspect towards Texas or her claims ; 
and the present executive certainly did not wish to interfere with that 
question, as a question of title. 

In his message of the 6th of August, the president declares his deter- 
mination to maintain the existing order of things in New Mexico. He 
would protect the inhabitants in the enjoyment of their liberty and 
property, within the territory possessed and occupied by them as New 
Mexico at t]\e date of the treaty, until a definite boundary should be 
established. And he recommended to congress a speedy settlement of 
the question of boundary. 

On the 13th of August, the governor, in his message to the legisla- 
ture, which he had convened in extra session, expressed his repugnance 
to any compromise of the boundary of Texas on the part of congress, 
without her consent, and evinced a disposition to resist by force any 
infringement of her territorial rights. The people of the state appear- 
ing determined to stand by their executive, a collision between the two 
powers, state and federal, was for a short time apprehended. 

A few days after the passage of the Utah territorial bill, Mr. Pearce, 
on the 5th of August, introduced into the senate a bill defining the 
boundaries of the state, ceding to the United States all her claim to ter- 
ritory exterior to these boundaries, and relinquishing all claims upon the 
United States for liability for the debts of Texas, and for compensation 
or indemnity for the surrender of her ships, forts, custom-houses, reve- 
nue, and other public property ; in consideration of all of which the 
United States agreed to pay $10,000,000. The existing crisis demanded 
prompt action ; and the bill was passed by the two houses on the days 
and in the manner already stated. 

The passage of the Utah territorial bill — all that remained of the 
" omnibus" bill — on the last day of July, and the subsequent passage, 
separately, of its other parts, have been mentioned. The Texas bound- 
ary bill passed the senate the 10th of August, by a vote of 30 to 20 ; 
and on the 14th, the bill to organize the territory of New Mexico passed 
the same body, 27 to 10. In the house these two bills were united, and 
passed September 6th, 107 to 97; and in this action of the house, the 
senate concurred. Before the passage of the bill, however, a proviso 
was added, that nothing in the bill should impair the joint resolution of 



912 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

1845 for annexing Texas " either as regards the number of states that 
might be formed out of the state of Texas, or otherwise." 

The bill to admit California as a state, passed the senate, August 13th, 
34 to 18 ; the house, September 17th, 150 to 56. 

The fugitive slave bill passed the senate August 23d, by a vote of 27 
to 12. In the house, the bill was passed under the action of the pre- 
vious question, without debate, 109 to 75. 

The remaining bill was that for abolishing the slave trade in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia ; for which Mr. Seward proposed a substitute abolish- 
ing slavery itself in the district. The proposition, after a speech in its 
favor, was rejected; ayes, 5 ; noes, 46, On the 14th of September, the 
bill passed the senate, 33 to 19 ; and on the 17th it passed the house, 
124 to 59. 

The debates upon these bills, especially the fugitive slave bill, in both 
houses, were animated and of great interest ; but the appropriation of 
the liberal space already assigned to this discussion, forbids its farther 
extension. 

The compromise acts were the principal measures adopted at this very 
long session. At the next session, also, (1850-51,) although several 
important measures in both houses made considerable progress, few 
of them became laws. Perhaps the act of the most general interest was 
the existing postage law, reducing the rates of postage to three cents on 
prepaid single letters, for a distance of 3,000 miles, and five cents if not 
prepaid ; and double these rates for any greater distance. 



CHAPTER LXXIII. 

THE COMPROMISE OF 1850, CONTINUED. SPEECHES OT MESSRS. SEWARD 

AND CASS. 

In the senate, on the 11th of March, 1850, the president's message 
transmitting the constitution of the state of California being under con- 
sideration, Mr. Seward addressed the senate in a speech of about three 
hours. As Mr. S. touched upon all the principal topics embraced in 
the general question of slavery as presented at this session, and as the 
subject is one of immense and lasting importance to the union, it is 
thought proper to transfer to our pages a large portion of the speech, as 
follows : — 



ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 913 

Shall California be received ? For myself, upon my individual 
judgment and conscience, I answer, Yes. For myself, as an instructed 
representative of one of the states, of that one even of the states which 
is soonest and longest to be pressed in commercial and political rivalry 
by the new commonwealth, I answer, Yes. Let California come in. 
Every new state, whether she come from the east or from the west, 
every new state, coming from whatever part of the continent she mav, is 
always welcome. But California, that comes from the clime where the 
west dies away into the rising east ; California, that bounds at once the 
empire and the continent ; California, the youthful queen of the Pacific, 
in her robes of freedom, gorgeously inlaid with gold — is doubly welcome. 

And now I inquire, first, Whi/ should California be rejected ? All 
the objections are founded only in the circumstances of her coming, and 
in the organic law which she presents for our confirmation. 

1st. California comes unceremoniously, without a preliminary con- 
sent of congress, and therefore by usurpation. This allegation, I think, 
is not quite true ; at least, not quite true in spirit. California is here 
not of her own pure volition. We tore California and New Mexico 
violently from their places in the confederation of Mexican "states, and 
stipulated, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that the territories thus 
acquired should be admitted as states into the American union as 
speedily as possible. But the letter of the objection still holds. Cali- 
fornia does come without having obtained a preliminary consent of con- 
gress to form a constitution. But Michigan and other states presented 
themselves in the same unauthorized way, and congress waived the 
irregularity ^ and sanctioned the usurpation. California pleads these 
precedents. Is not the plea sufficient ? 

But it has been said by the honorable senator from South Carolina, 
(Mr. Calhoun,) that the ordinance of 1787 secured to Michigan the 
right to become a state, when she should have sixty thousand in- 
habitants, and that, owing to some neglect, congress delayed taking the 
census. This is said in palliation of the irregularity of Michigan. But 
California, as has been seen, had a treaty, and congress, instead of 
giving previous consent, and instead of giving her the customary terri- 
torial government, as they did to Michigan, failed to do either, and thus 
practically refused both, and so abandoned the new community, under 
most unpropitious circumstances, to anarchy. California then made a 
constitution for herself, but not unnecessarily and presumptuously, as 
Michigan did She made a constitution for herself, and she cornea 
here under the law, the paramount law, of self-preservation. 

In that she stands justified. Indeed, California is more than justified. 
*he was a colony, a military colony. All colonies, especially iiiilitjir.'- 

58 



914 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

colonies, are incongruous with our political system, and they are equally 
open to corruption and exposed to oppression. They are, therefore, not 
more unfortunate in their own proper condition than fruitful of dangers 
to the parent democracy. California, then, acted wisely and well in 
establishing self-government. She deserves not rebuke, but praise and 
approbation. Nor does this objection come with a good grace from those 
who offer it. If California were now content to receive only a territorial 
charter, we could not agree to grant it without an inhibition of slavery, 
which, in that case, being a federal act, would render the attitude of 
California, as a territory, even more offensive to those who now repel her 
than she is as a state, with the same inhibition in the constitution of her 
own voluntary choice. 

A second objection is, that California has assigned her oivn bounda- 
ries without the previous authority of congress. But she was left to 
organize herself without any boundaries fixed by previous law or by pre- 
scription. She was obliged, therefore, to assume boundaries, since with- 
out boundaries she must have remained unorganized. 

A third objection is, that California is too large. I answer, first, 
there is no common standard of states. California, although greater 
than many, is less than one of the states. Secondly. California, if too 
large, may be divided with her own consent, and a similar provision is 
all the security we have for reducing the magnitude and averting the 
preponderance of Texas. Thirdly. The boundaries of California seem 
not at all unnatural. The territory circumscribed is altogether con- 
tiguous and compact. Fourthly. The boundaries are co«y(.vwe«i;. They 
embrace only inhabited portions of the country, commercially connected 
with the port of San Francisco. No one has pretended to offer boun- 
daries more in harmony with the physical outlines of the region con- 
cerned, or more convenient for civil administration. 

But to draw closer to the question, "What shall be the boundaries of 
a new state ? concerns — 

First. The state herself; and California, of course, is content. 

Secondly. Adjacent communities ; Oregon does not complain of en- 
croachment, and there is no other adjacent community to complain. 

Thirdly. The other states of the union ; the larger the Pacific states, 
the smaller will be their relative power in the senate. All the states 
now here are either Atlantic states or inland states, and surely they may 
well indulge California in the largest liberty of boundaries. 

The fourth objection to the admission of California is, that no census 
had been taken, and no laws prescribing the qualifications of suffrage and 
the apportionment of representatives in convention, existed before her 
convention was held. I answer, California was left to act ab initio 



ADMISSION OP CALFORNIA. 915 

She must begin somewhere, without a census, and without such laws. 
The pilgrim fathers began in the same way on board the Mayflower ; 
and, since it has been objected that some of the electors in California 
may have been aliens, I add, that all of the pilgrim fathers were aliens 
and strangers to the commonwealth of Plymouth. 

Again, the objection may well be waived, if the constitution of Cali- 
fornia is satisfactory, first to herself, secondly to the United States. 

Not a murmur of discontent has followed California to this place. 

As to ourselves, we confine our inquiries about the constitution of a 
new state to four things — 

1st. The boufularies assumed; and I have considered that point in 
this case already. 

2d. That the domain within the state is secured to us ; and it is ad- 
mitted that this has been properly done. 

3d. That the constitution shall be republican, and not aristocratic and 
monarchical. In this case, the onl}' objection is, that the constitution, 
inasmuch as it inhibits slavery, is altogether too republican. 

4th. That the representation claimed shall be just and equal. No 
one denies that the population of California is sufficient to demand two 
representatives on the federal basis ; and, secondly, a new census is at 
hand, and the error, if there is one, will be immediately corrected. 

The fifth objection is, that California comes under executive influ- 
ence. 1st In her coming as a free state. 2d. In her coming at all. 

The first charge rests on suspicion only, and is peremptorily denied, 
and the denial is not controverted by proofs. I dismiss it altogether. 
The second is true, to the extent that the president advised the people 
of California, that, having been left without any civil government, under 
the military supervision of the executive, without any authority of law 
whatever, their adoption of a constitution, subject to the approval of 
congress, would be regarded favorably by the president. Only a year 
ago, it was complained that the exercise of the military power to main- 
tain law and order in California, was a fearful innovation. But now the 
wind has changed, and blows even stronger from the opposite quarter. 
May this republic never have a president commit a more serious or more 
dangerous usurpation of power than the act of the present eminent chief 
magistrate, in endeavoring to induce legislative authority to relieve him 
from the exercise of military power, by establishing civil institutions 
regulated by law in distant provinces ! Rome would have been stand- 
ing this day, if she had had only such generals and such consuls. 

But the objection, whether true in part, or even in the whole, is im- 
material The question is, not what moved California to impress any 
particular feature on her constitution, nor even what induced her to 



916 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

adopt a constitution at all ; but it is -whether, since she has adopted a 
constitution, she shall be admitted into the union. 

I have now reviewed all the objections raised against the admission 
of California. It is seen that they have no foundation in the law of 
nature and of nations. Nor are they founded in the constitution, for 
the constitution prescribes no form or manner of proceeding in the ad- 
mission of new states, but leaves the whole to the discretion of congress. 
" Congress may admit new states." The objections are all merely 
formal and technical. They rest on precedents which have not always, 
nor even generally, been observed. But it is said that we ought now 
to establish a safe precedent for the future. 

I answer, 1st : It is too late to seize this occasion for that purpose. 
The irregularities complained of being unavoidable, the caution should 
have been exercised when, 1st, Texas was annexed ; 2d, when we waged 
war against Mexico ; or, 3d, when we ratified the treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo. 

I answer, 2d : We may establish precedents at pleasure. Our suc- 
cessors will exercise their -pleasuve about following them, just as we have 
done in such cases. 

I answer, 3d: States, nations, and empires, are apt to be peculiarly 
capricious, not only as to the time, but even as to the manner, of their 
being born, and as to their subsequent political changes. They are not 
accustomed to conform to precedents. California sprang from the head 
of the nation, not only complete in proportions and full armed, but ripe 
for affiliation with its members. * * # 

But it is insisted that the admission of California shall be attended 
by a compromise of questions which have arisen out of slavery ! 

I am opposed to any such compromise, in any and all the forms in 
which it has been proposed ; because, while admitting the purity and 
the patriotism of all from whom it is my misfortune to difi"er, I think 
all legislative compromises, which are not absolutely necessary, radi- 
cally wrong and essentially vicious. They involve the surrender of the 
exercise of judgment and conscience on distinct and separate questions, 
at distinct and separate times, with the indispensable advantages it 
affords for ascertaining truth. They involve a relinquishment of the 
right to reconsider in future the decisions of the present, on questions 
prematurely anticipated. And they are acts of usurpation as to future 
questions of the province of future legislators. 

Sir, it seems to me as if slavery had laid its paralyzing hand upon 
myself, and the blood were coursing less freely than its wont through 
my veins, when I endeavor to suppose that such a compromise has been 
effected, and that my utterance for ever is arrested upon all the great 



ADMISSION OF OALIFORNU 917 

questioLb — social, moral, and political — arising out of a subject so im- 
portant, and as yet so incomprehensible. 

What am I to receive in this compromise ? Freedom in California. 
It is well ; it is a noble acquisition ; it is worth a sacrifice. But what 
am I to give as an equivalent ? A recognition of the claim to perpe- 
tuate slavery in the District of Columbia; forbearance toward more 
stringent laws concerning the arrest of persons suspected of being slaves 
found in the free states ; forbearance from the proviso of freedom in the 
charters of new territories. None of the plans of compromise offered 
demand less than two, and most of them insist on all of these conditions. 
The equivalent, then, is, some portion of liberty, some portion of human 
rights in one region for liberty in another region. But California brings 
gold and commerce as well as freedom. I am, then, to surrender some 
portion of human freedom in the District of Columbia, and in East 
California and New Mexico, for the mixed consideration of liberty, gold, 
and power, on the Pacific coast, * # » 

But, sir, if I could overcome my repugnance to compromises in general, 
I should object to this one, on the ground of the iiiequality and incon- 
gruity of the interests to be compromised. Why, sir, according to the 
views I have submitted, California ought to come in, and must come in, 
whether slavery stand or fall in the District of Columbia; whether 
slavery stand or fall in New Mexico and Eastern California ; and even 
whether slavery stand or fall in the slave states. California ought to 
come in, being a free state ; and, under the circumstances of her con- 
quest, her compact, her abandonment, her justifiable and necessary 
establishment of a constitution, and the inevitable dismemberment of the 
empire consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for her ad- 
mission even if she had come as a slave state, California ought to come 
in, and must come in at all events. It is, then, an independent, a para- 
mount question. What, then, are these questions arising out of slavery, 
thus interposed, but collateral questions ? They are unnecessary and 
incongruous, and therefore false issues, not introduced designedly, indeed, 
to defeat that great policy, yet unavoidably tending to that end. 

Mr. FooTE. Will the honorable senator allow me to ask him, if the 
senate is to understand him as saying that he would vote for the admis- 
sion of California if she came here seeking admission as a slave state ? 

Mr. Sewaiid. I reply, as I said before, that even if California had 
come as a slave state, yet coming under the extraordinary circumstances 
I Lave described, and in view of the consequences of a dismemberment 
of the empire, consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for 
her admission, even though she had come as r. slave state. But I should 
not have voted for her admission otherwise. 



918 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

I remark in the next place, that consent on my part would be disin- 
genuous and fraudulent, because the compromise would be unavailing. 

It is now avowed by the honorable senator from South Carolina, (Mr. 
Calhoun,) that nothing will satisfy the slave states but a compromise 
that will convince them that they can remain in the union consistently 
with their honor and their safety. And what are the concessions which 
will have that ejffect ? Here they are, in the words of that senator : — 

" The North must do justice by conceding to the South an equal right 
in the acquired territory, and do her duty by causing the stipulations 
relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled — cease the agitation 
of the slave question — and provide for the insertion of a provision in 
the constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South in 
substance the power she possessed, of protecting herself, before the 
equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this 
government." 

These terms amount to this : that the free states haviug already, or 
although they may hereafter have, majorities of population, and majori- 
ties in both houses of congress, shall concede to the slave states, being 
in a minority in both, the unequal advantage of an equality. That is, 
that we shall alter the constitution so as to convert the government from 
a national democracy, cporating by a constitutional majority of voices, 
into a federal alliance, in which the minority shall have a veto against 
the majority. And this would be nothing less than to return to the 
original articles of confederation. * # * 

Nor would success attend amj of the details of this compromise. And, 
first, I advert to the proposed alteration of the law concerning fugitives 
from service or labor. I shall speak on this, as on all subjects, with 
due respect, but yet frankly, and without reservation. The constitu- 
tion contains only a compact, which rests for its execution on the states. 
Not content with this, the slave states induced legislation by congress ; 
and the supreme court of the United States have virtually decided that 
the whole subject is within the province of congress, and exclusive of 
state authority. Nay, they have decided that slaves are to be regarded, 
not merely as persons to be claimed, but as property and chattels, to be 
seized without any legal authority or claim whatever. The compact is 
thus subverted by the procurement of the slave states. With what 
reason, then, can they expect the states ex gratia to reassume the obli- 
gations from which they caused those states to be discharged ? I say, 
then, to the slave states, you are entitled to no more stringent laws ; 
and that such laws would be useless. The cause of the inefficiency of 
the present statute is not at all the leniency of its provisions. It is a 
l.uv that deprives the alleged refugee from a legal obligation not assumed 



ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 919 

by him, but imposed upon him by laws enacted before he was born, of 
the writ of habeas corpus, and of any certain judicial process of examina- 
tion of the claim set up by his pursuer, and finally degrades him into a 
chattel which may be seized and carried away peaceably wherever found, 
even although exercising the rights and responsibilities of a free citizen 
of the commonwealth in which he resides, and of the United States — a 
law which denies to the citizen all the safeguards of personal liberty, to 
render less frequent the escape of the bondman. And since complaints 
are so freely made against the one side, I shall not hesitate to declare 
that there have been even greater faults on the other side. Relying on 
the perversion of the constitution which makes slaves mere chattels, the 
slave states have applied to them the principles of the criminal law, and 
have held that he who aided the escape of his fellow-man from bondage 
was guilty of a larceny in stealing him. I speak of what I know. Two 
instances came within my own knowledge, in which governors of slave 
states, under the provision of the constitution relating to fugitives from 
justice, demanded from the governor of a free state the surrender of pep- 
sons as thieves whose alleged offenses consisted in constructive larceny 
of the rags that covered the persons of female slaves, whose attempt at 
escape they permitted or assisted. 

We deem the principle of the law for the recapture of fugitives, as 
thus expounded, therefore, unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral ; and 
thus, while patriotism withholds its approbation, the consciences of our 
people condemn it. * * * 

Another feature in most of these plans of compromise is a bill of 
peace for slavery in the District of Columbia ; and this bill of peace we 
cannot grant. We of the free states are, equally with you of the slave 
states, responsible for the existence of slavery in this district, the field 
exclusively of our common legislation. I regret that, as yet, I see little 
reason to hope that a majority in favor of emancipation exists here. The 
legislature of New York — from whom, with great deference, I dissent — 
seems willing to accept now the extinction of the slave trade, and waive 
emancipation. But we shall assume the whole responsibility, if we 
stipulate not to exercise the power hereafter when a majority shall be 
obtained. Nor will the plea with which you would furnish us be of any 
avail. If I could understand so mysterious a paradox myself, I never 
should be able to explain, to the apprehension of the people whom I 
represent, how it was that an absolute and express power to legislate in 
all cases over the District of Columbia, was embarrassed and defeated 
by an implied condition not to legislate for the abolition of slavery in 
this district. Sir, T shall vote for that measure, and am willing to ap- 
propriate any means necessary to carry it into execution. And, if I 



920 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

shall be asked what I did to embellish the capital of my country, I will 
poiut to her freedmen, and say, these are the monuments of my muni- 
ficence I * * * 

I come now to notice the suggested compromise of the bou7idary he- 
tiveen Texas and New Mexico. This is a judicial question in its nature, 
or at least a question of legal right and title. If it is to be comprO' 
mised at all, it is due to the two parties, and to national dignity as well 
as to justice, that it be kept separate from compromises proceeding on 
the ground of expediency, and be settled by itself alone. 

I take this occasion to say, that while I do not intend to discuss the 
questions alluded to in this connection by the honorable and distinguished 
senator from Massachusetts, I am not able to agree with him in regard 
to the alleged obligation of congress to admit four new slave states, to 
be formed in the state of Texas. There are several questions arising 
out of that subject, upon which I am not prepared to decide now, and 
which I desire to reserve for future consideration. One of these is, 
whether the article of annexation does really deprive congress of the 
right to exercise its choice in regard to the subdivision of Texas into 
four additional states. It seems to me by no means so plain a question 
as the senator from Massachusetts assumed, and that it must be left to 
remain an open question, as it is a great question, whether congress is 
not a party whose future consent is necessary to the formation of new 
states out of Texas. 

Mr. Webster. Supposing congress to have the authority to fix the 
number, and time of election, and apportionment of representatives, &c., 
the question is, whether, if new states are formed out of Texas, to come 
into this union, there is not a solemn pledge by law that they have a 
right to come in as slave states ? 

Mr. Seward. When the states are once formed, they have the right to 
come in as free or slave states, according to their own choice ; but what 
I insist is, that they cannot be formed at all without the consent of 
congress, to be hereafter given, which consent congress is not obliged to 
give. But I pass that question for the present, and proceed to say that 
I am not prepared to admit that the article of the annexation of Texas 
is itself constitutional. I find no authority in the constitution of the 
United States for the annexation of foreign countries b}' a resolution of 
congress, and no power adequate to that purpose but the treaty-making 
power of the president and the senate. Entertaining this view, I must 
JMsist that the constitutiouality of the annexation of Texas itself shall 
be cleared up before I can agree to the admission of any new states to 
be formed within Texas. 

Mr. FooTE. Did I not hear the senator observe that he would admit 



ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 921 

California, whether slavery was or was not precluded from these terri- 
tories ? 

Mr. Seward. I said I would have voted for the admission of Cali- 
fornia even as a slave state, under the extraordinary circumstances 
which I have before distinctly described. I say that now ; but I say 
also, that before I would agree to admit any more states from Texas, the 
circumstances which render such an act necessary must be shown, and 
must be such as to determine my obligation to do so ; and that is pre- 
cisely what I insist cannot be settled now. It must be left for those to 
whom the responsibility will belong. 

Mr. President, I understand, and I am happy in understanding, that I 
agree with the honorable senator from Massachusetts, that there is no 
obligation upon congress to admit four new slave states out of Texas, 
but that congress has reserved her right to say whether those states shall 
be formed and admitted or not. I shall rely on that reservation. I 
shall vote to admit no more slave states, unless under circumstances 
absolutely compulsory — and no such case is now foreseen. 

Mr. Webster. What I said was, that if the states hereafter to be 
made out of Texas choose to come in as slave states, they have a right 
so to do. 

- Mr. Seward. My position is, that they have not a right to come in 
at all, if congress rejects their institutions. The subdivision of Texas 
is a matter optional with both parties, Texas and the United States. 

Mr. Webster, Does the honorable senator mean to say that congress 
can hereafter decide whether they shall be slave or free states ? 

Mr. Seward. I mean to say that congress can hereafter decide whe- 
ther any states, slave or free, can be framed out of Texas. If they 
should never be framed out of Texas, they never could be admitted. 

Another objection ao'ises out of the principle on which the demand for 
compromise rests. That principle assumes a classification of the states 
as northern and southern states, as it is expressed by the honorable 
senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) but into slave states and 
free states, as more directly expressed by the honorable senator from 
Georgia, (Mr. Berrien). The argument is, that the states are severally 
equal, and that these two classes were equal at the first, and that the 
constitution was founded on that equilibrium ; that the states being 
equal, 'and the classes of the states being equal in rights, they are to be 
regarded as constituting an association in which each state, and each of 
these classes of states, respectively, contribute in due proportions; that 
the new territories are a common acquisition, and the people of these 
several states and classes of states have an equal right to participate 
m them, respectively ; that the right of the people of the slave states to 



922 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

emigrate to the territories with their slaves as property is necessary to 
afford such a participation on their part, inasmuch as the people of the 
free states emigrate into the same territories with their property. And 
the argument deduces from this right the principle that, if congress ex- 
clude slavery from any part of this new domain, it would be only just 
to set off a portion of the domain — some say south of 36 deg. 30 min., 
others south of 34 deg. — which should be regarded at least as free to 
slavery, and to be organized into slave states. 

Argument ingenious and subtle, declamation earnest and bold, and 
persuasion gentle and winning as the voice of the turtle dove when it is 
heard in the land, all alike and altogether have failed to convince me of 
the soundness of this principle of the proposed compromise, or of any 
one of the propositions on which it is attempted to be established. * * * 

The constitution does not expressly affirm anything on the subject; 
all that it contains is two incidental allusions to slaves. These are, 
first, in the provision establishing a ratio of representation and taxation; 
and, secondly, in the provision relating to fugitives from labor. In both 
cases, the constitution designedly mentions slaves, not as slaves, much 
less as chattels, but as petsons. That this recognition of them as per- 
sons was designed is historically known, and I think was never denied. 
I give only two of the manifold proofs. First, John Jay, in the Fed- 
eralist, says : 

" Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peeuliai 
one. Let the compromising expedient of the constitution be mutually 
adopted which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased below the 
equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the slave as divested of 
two-fifths of the man." 

Yes, sir, of two-fifths, but of only two-fifths ; leaving still three-fifths ; 
leaving the slave still an inhabitant, a person, a living, breathing, mov- 
ing, reasoning, immortal man. 

The other proof is from the debates in the convention. It is brief, 
and I think instructive: 

" August, 28, 1787. 
" Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require fugitive slaves and 
servants to be delivered up like convicts. 

" Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the executive of the state to do 
it at public expense. t 

" Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and sur 
rendering a slave or a servant than a horse. 

Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular 
provision might be made, apart from this article." 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 



923 



" August 29, 1787. 

"Mr. Butler moved to insert after article 15 : 'If any person bound 
to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another 
state, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in 
consequence of any regulation subsisting in the state to which they 
escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their 
service or labor.' " 

"After the engrossment, September 15, page 550, article 4, section 
2, the third paragraph, the term ' legally ' was struck out, and the words 
* under the laws thereof inserted after the word ' state,' in compliance 
with the wishes of some who thought the term ' legal ' equivocal, and 
favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral viewy — Madison 
Debates, pp. 487, 492. 

I deem it established, then, that the constitution does not recognize 
property in man, but leaves that question, as between the states, to the 
law of nature and of nations. That law, as expounded by Vattel, is 
founded on the reason of things. When God had created tho earth, 
with its wonderful adaptations. He gave dominion over it to man, abso- 
lute human dominion. The title of that dominion, thus bestowed, 
would have been incomplete, if the Lord of all terrestrial things could 
himself have been the property of his fellow-man. # # # 

But there is yet another aspect in which this principle must be ex- 
amined. It regards the domain only as a possession, to be enjoyed 
either in common or by partition by the citizens of the old states. It 
is true, indeed, that the national domain is ours. It is true it was ac- 
quired by the valor and with the wealth of the whole nation. But we 
hold no arbitrary authority over it. We hold no arbitrary authority 
over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The 
constitution regulates our stewardship ; the constitution devotes the do- 
main to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare, and to liberty. 

But there is a higher law than the constitution, which regulates our 
authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. 
The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage 
of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the Universe. We 
are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the 
highest attainable degree their happiness. * * # 

It remains only to remark that our own experience has proved the 
dangerous influence and tendency of slavery. All our apprehensions of 
dangers, present and future, begin and end with slavery. If slavery, 
limited as it yet is, now threatens to subvert the constitution, how can 
we, as wise and prudent statesmen, enlarge its boundaries and increase 
its influence and thus increase already impend'ug dangers? Whether, 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

then, I regard merely the welfare of the future inhabitants of the new 
territories, or the security and welfare of the whole people of the United 
States, or the welfare of the whole family of mankind, I cannot consent 
to introduce slavery into any part of this continent which is now exempt 
from what seems to me so great an evil. These are my reasons for de- 
clining to compromise the question relating to slavery as a condition of 
the admission of California. 

In acting upon an occasion so grave as this, a respectful considera- 
tion is due to the arguments^ founded on extraneous considerations, of 
senators who commend a course different from that which I have pre- 
ferred. The first of these arguments is, that congress has no power to 
legislate on the subject of slavery within the teritories. 

Sir, congress may admit new states ; and since congress may admit, 
it follows that congress may reject new states. The discretion of con- 
gress in admitting is absolute, except that, when admitted, the state 
must be a republican state, and must be a state : that is, it shall have 
the constitutional form and powers of a state. But the greater includes 
the less, and therefore congress may impose conditions of admission not 
inconsistent with those fundamental powers and forms. Boundaries are 
such. The reservation of the public domain is such. The right to 
divide is such. The ordinance excluding slavery is such a condition. 
The organization of a territory is ancillary or preliminary; it is the 
inchoate, the initiative act of admission, and is performed under the 
clause granting the powers necessary to execute the express powers of 
the constitution. 

This power comes from the treaty-making power also, and I think 
it well traced to the power to make needful rules and regulations con- 
cerning the public domain. But this question is not a material one 
now ; the power is here to be exercised. The question now is. How is 
it to be exercised ? not whether we shall exercise it at all, however de- 
rived. And the right to regulate property, to administer justice in re- 
gard to property, is assumed in every territorial charter. If we have 
the power to legislate concerning property, we have the power to legis- 
late concerning personal rights. Freedom is a personal right ; and 
congress, being the supreme legislature, has the same right in regard to 
property and personal rights in territories that the states would have if 
organized. 

The next of this class of arguments is, that the inhibition of slavery 
in the new territories is unnecessary ; and when I come to this question, 
I encounter the loss of many who lead in favor of admitting California 

The argument is, that the j^^'oviso is unnecessary. I answer, then, 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 925 

there can be no error in insisting upon it. But why ia it unnecessary ? 
It is said,^?-5^, by reason of climate. I answer^ if this be so, why do 
not the representatives of the slave states concede the proviso ? They 
deny that the climate prevents the introduction of slavery. Then I will 
leave nothing to a contingency. But, in truth, I think the weight of 
argument is against the proposition. Is there any climate where slavery 
has not existed ? It has prevailed all over Europe, from sunny Italy 
to bleak England, and is existing now, stronger than in any other land, 
in ice-bound Russia. But it will be replied, that this is not African 
slavery. I rejoin, that only makes the case the stronger; If this vigorous 
Saxon race of ours was reduced to slavery while it retained the courage 
of semi-barbarism in its own high northern latitude, what security does 
climate afford against the transplantation of the more gentle, more 
docile, and already enslaved and debased African to the genial climate 
of New Mexico and Eastern California ? 

Sir, there is no climate uncongenial to slavery. It is true it is less 
productive than free labor in many northern countries. But so it is 
less productive than free .white labor in even tropical climates. Labor 
is in quick demand in all new countries. Slave labor is cheaper than 
free labor, and it would go first into new regions ; and wherever it goes 
it brings labor into dishonor, and therefore free white labor avoids com- 
petition with it. Sir, I might rely on climate if I had not been born in 
a land where slavery existed — and this land was all of it north of the 
fortieth parallel of latitude ; and if I did not know the struggle it has 
cost, and which is yet going on, to get complete relief from the institu- 
tion and its baleful consequences. I desire to propound this questioc 
to those who are now in favor of dispensing with the Wilmot proviso : 
Was the ordinance of 1787 necessary or not? Necessary, we all agree. 
It has received too many elaborate eulogiums to be now decried as an 
idle and superfluous thing. And yet that ordinance extended the inhibi- 
tion of slavery from the thirty-seventh to the fortieth parallel of north 
latitude. And now we are told that the inhibition named is unnecessary 
anywhere north of 36 deg. 30 min. ! We are told that we may rely upon 
the laws of God, which prohibit slave labor north of that line, and that 
it is absurd to reenact the laws of God. Sir, there is no human enact- 
ment which is just that is not a reenactment of the law of God. The 
constitution of the United States and the constitutions of all the states 
are full of such reenactments. Wherever I find a law of God or a law 
of nature disregarded, or in danger of being disregarded, there I shall 
vote to reaffirm it, with all the sanction of the civil authority. But I 
find no authority for the position that climate prevents slavery anywhere. 
It is the indolence of mankind in any climate, and not any natural ne- 
cessity, that introduces slavery in any climate. # » # 



926 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

It is insisted that the diffusion of slavery will not increase its evils. 
The argument seems to me merely specious, and quite unsound. I de- 
sire to propose one or two questions in reply to it. Is slavery stronger 
or weaker in these United States, from its diffusion into Missouri ? Is 
slavery weaker or stronger in these United States, from the exclusion 
of it from the northwest territory ? The answers to these questions 
will settle the whole controversy. 

And this brings me to the great and all-absorbing argument that the 
union is in danger of being dissolved, and that it can only be saved by 
compromise. I do not know what I would not do to save the union ; 
and therefore I shall bestow upon this subject a very deliberate con- 
sideration. 

I do not overlook the fact that the entire delegation from the slave 
states, although they differ in regard to the details of the compromise pro- 
posed, and perhaps in regard to the exact circumstances of the crisis, 
seem to concur in this momentous warning. Nor do I doubt at all the 
patriotic devotion to the union which is expressed by those from whom 
this warning proceeds. And yet, sir, although such warnings have been 
uttered with impassioned solemnity in my hearing every day for near 
three months, my confidence in the union remains unshaken. I think 
they are to be received with no inconsiderable distrust, because they are 
uttered under the influence of a controlling interest to be secured, a 
paramount object to be gained; and that is ain equilibrium of power in 
theEepublic. * « « 

Sir, in any condition of society there can be no revolution without a 
cause, an adequate cause. What cause exists here ? We are admitting 
a new state ; but there is nothing new in that : we have already admit- 
ted seventeen before. But it is said that the slave states are in danger 
of losing political power by the admission of the new state. Well, sir, 
is there anything new in that ? The slave states have always been 
losing political power, and they always will be while they have any to 
lose. At first, twelve of the thirteen states were slave states ; now only 
fifteen out of the thirty are slave states. Moreover, the change is con- 
stitutionally made, and the government was constructed so as to permit 
changes of the balance of power, in obedience to changes of the forces of 
the body politic. Danton used to say, " It's all well while the people 
cry Danton and Robespierre ; but wo for me if ever the people learn to 
say, Robespierre and Danton !" That is all of it, sir. The people have 
been accustomed to say, " the South and the North ;" they are only be- 
ginning now to say, " the North and the South." # # # 

Sir, when the founders of the republic of the south come to draw those 
fearful lines, they will indicate what portions of the continent are to be 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES 927 

broken oflf from their connection with the Atlantic, through the St. 
Lawrence, the Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac, and the Mississippi ; 
what portion of this people are to be denied the use of the lakes, the 
railroads, and the canals, now constituting common and customary 
avenues of travel, trade, and social intercourse ; what families and kin- 
dred are to be separated, and converted into enemies ; and what states 
are to be the scenes of perpetual border warfare, aggravated by inter- 
minable horrors of servile insurrection. When those portentous lines 
shall be drawn, they will disclose what portion of this people is to retain 
the army and the navy, and the flag of so many victories ; and on the 
other hand, what portion of the people is to be subjected to new and 
onerous imposts, direct taxes, and forced loans, and conscriptions, to 
maintain an opposing army, an opposing navy, and the new and hateful 
banner of sedition. Then the projectors of the new republic of the south 
will meet the question — and they may well prepare now to answer it — 
What is all this for ? What intolerable wrong, what unfraternal injus- 
tice, have rendered these calamities unavoidable ? What gain will this 
unnatural revolution bring to us ? The answer will be : All this is 
done to secure the institution of African slavery. # # # 

But you insist on a guaranty against the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia, or war. Well, when you shall have declared 
war against us, what shall hinder us from immediately decreeing that 
slavery shall cease within the national capital ? 

You say that you will not submit to the exclusion of slaves from the 
new territories. What will you gain by resistance ? Liberty follows 
the sword, although her sway is one of peace and beneficence. Can you 
propagate slavery then by the sword ? 

You insist that you cannot submit to the freedom with which slavery 
is discussed in the free states. Will war — a war for slavery — arrest or 
even moderate that discussion ? No, sir ; that discussion will not cease ; 
war will only inflame it to a greater height. It is a part of the eternal 
conflict between truth and error — between mind and physical force — the 
conflict of man against the obstacles which oppose his way to an ulti- 
mate and glorious destiny. It will go on until you shall terminate it in 
the only way in which any state or nation has ever terminated it — by 
yielding to it — yielding in your own time, and in your own manner 
indeed, but nevertheless yielding to the progress of emancipation. You 
will do this, sooner or later, whatever may be your opinion now ; because 
nations which were prudent and humane, and wise as you are, have done 
so already. 

Sir, the slave states have no reason to fear that this inevitable chanpo 
will go too far or too fast for their safety or welfare. It cannot well go 
too fast ,r too far, if the only alternative is a war of I'aces. 



938 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

But it cannot go too fast. Slavery has a reliable and accommodating 
ally in a party in the free states, which, though it claims to be, and doubt- 
less is in many respects, a party of progress, finds its sole security for 
its political power in the support and aid of slavery in the slave states. 
Of course, I do not include in that party those who are now cooperating 
in maintaining the cause of freedom against slavery. I am not of that 
party of progress which in the north thus lends its support to slavery. 
But it is only just and candid that I should bear witness to its fidelity 
to the interests of slavery. 

Slavery has, moreover, a more natural alliance with the aristocracy 
of the north and with the aristocracy of Europe. So long as slavery 
shall possess the cotton-fields, the sugar-fields, and the rice-fields of the 
world, so long will commerce and capital yield it toleration and sym- 
pathy. Emancipation is a democratic revolution. It is capital that 
arrests all democratic revolutions. It was capital that, so recently, in a 
single year, rolled back the tide of revolution from the base of the Car- 
pathian mountains, across the Danube and the Rhine, into the streets of 
Paris. It is capital that is rapidly rolling back the throne of Napoleon 
into the chambers of the Tuilleries. 

Slavery has a guaranty still stronger than these in the prejudices of 
caste and color, which induce even large majorities in all the free states 
to regard sympathy with the slave as an act of unmanly humiliation and 
self-abasement, although philosophy meekly expresses her distrust of the 
asserted natural superiority of the white race, and confidently denies 
that such a superiority, if justly claimed, could give a title to oppression. 

There remains one more guaranty — one that has seldom failed you, 
and will seldom fail you hereafter. New states cling in closer alliance 
than older ones to the federal power. The concentration of the slave 
power enables you for long periods to control the federal government 
with the aid of the new states. I do not know the sentiments of the 
representatives of California ; but, my word for it, if they should be 
admitted on this floor to-day, against your most obstinate opposition, 
they would, on all questions really affecting your interests, be found at 
your side. # * * * 

There are many well-disposed persons who are alarmed at the occur- 
rence of any such disturbance. The failure of a legislative body to organize 
is to their apprehension a fearful omen, and an extra-constitutional 
assemblage to consult upon public afi"airs is with them cause for despe- 
ration. Even senators speak of the union as if it existed only by con- 
sent, and, as it seems to be implied, by the assent of the legislatures of 
the states. On the contrary, the union was not founded in voluntary 
choice, nor does it exist by voluntary consent. 



SLAVERY IN THE 12RR1T0RIES. 929 

A union was proposed to the colonies by Franklin and others, in 
1754; but such was their aversion to an abridgment of their own 
importance, respectively, that it was rejected even under the pressure of 
a disastrous invasion by France. 

A union of choice was proposed to the colonies in 1775 ; but so strong 
was their opposition, that they went through the war of independence 
without having established more than a mere council of consultation. 

But with independence came enlarged interests of agriculture — abso- 
lutely new interests of manufactures — interests of commerce, oi fish- 
eries, of navigation, of a common domain, of common debts, of common 
revenues and taxation, of the administration of justice, of public defense, 
of public honor ; in short, interests of common nationality and sover- 
eignty — interests which at last compelled the adoption of a more perfect 
union — a national government. 

The genius, talents, and learning of Hamilton, of Jay, and of Madi- 
son, surpassing perhaps the intellectual power ever exerted before for 
the establishment of a government, combined with the serene but mighty 
influence of Washington, were only sufficient to secure the reluctant 
adoption of the constitution that is now the object of all our affections 
and of the hopes of mankind. No wonder that the conflicts in which 
that constitution was born, and the almost desponding solemnity of 
"Washington, in his farewell address, impressed his countrymen and man- 
kind with a profound distrust of its perpetuity ! No wonder that while 
the murmurs of that day are yet ringing in our ears, we cherish that 

distrust, with pious reverence, as a national and patriotic sentiment. 
• ***** * 

I have heard somewhat here, and almost for the first time in my life, 
of divided allegiance — of allegiance to the south and to the union — of 
allegiance to states severally and to the union. Sir, if sympathies with 
state emulation and pride of achievement could be allowed to raise up 
another sovereign to divide the allegiance of a citizen of the United 
States, I might recognize the claims of the state to which, by birth and 
gratitude, I belong — to the state of Hamilton and Jay, of Schuyler, of 
the Clintons, and of Fulton — the state which, with less than two hun- 
dred miles of natural navigation connected with the ocean, has, by her 
own enterprise, secured to herself the commerce of the continent, and is 
steadily advancing to the command of the commerce of the world. But 
for all this I know only one country and one sovereign — the United 
States of America and the American people. And such as my allegi- 
ance is, is the loyalty of every other citizen of the United States. As 
I speak, he will speak when his time arrives. He knows no other coun- 
try and no other sovereign. He has life, liberty, property, and precious 

59 



930 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

affections, and hopes for himself and for his posterity, treasured up in 
the ark of the union. He knows as well and feels as strongly as I do, 
that this government is his own government; that he is a part of it; 
that it was established for him, and that it is maintained by him ; that 
it is the only truly wise, just, free, and equal government, that has ever 
existed ; that no other government could be so wise, just, free, and 
equal ; and that it is safer and more beneficent than any which time or 
change could bring into its place. 

You may tell me, sir, that although all this may be true, yet the trial 
of faction has not yet been made. Sir, if the trial of faction has not 
been made, it has not been because faction has not always existed, and 
has not always menaced a trial, but because faction could find no ful- 
crum on which to place the lever to subvert the union, as it can find no 
fulcrum now; and in this is my confidence. I would not rashly provoke 
the trial ; but I will not sufi'er a fear, which I have not, to make me 
compromise one sentiment, one principle of truth or justice, to avert a 
danger that all experience teaches me is purely chimerical. Let, then, 
those who distrust the union make compromises to save it. I shall not 
impeach their wisdom, as I certainly cannot their patriotism; but, 
indulging no such apprehensions myself, I shall vote for the admission 
of California directly, without conditions, without qualifications, and 
without compromise. * * * 

Mr. Cass, on the 13th of March, expressed his views at some length. 
A part of his speech was in reply to certain remarks of Mr. Calhoun 
and Mr. Seward. He agreed with what had been said by Mr. Clay ; 
and he would vote for the proposed reference of the resolutions, indeed 
for almost any proposition likely to bring this country into harmony 
upon this perplexing question. He thought the country was under last- 
ing obligations to Mr. Foote for his efi"orts to terminate the existing diffi- 
culties. For Mr. Calhoun, he expressed deep sympathy, but dissented 
from parts of his speech, which, he thought, contained a strange collec- 
tion and collocation of facts, followed by strange conclusions. The som- 
bre hue which pervaded his speech, he imagined, was owing to its having 
been prepared in the recesses of a sick chamber. [Mr. Calhoun, too 
feeble to address the senate, had written his speech, which had been read 
by Mr. Mason, of Virginia.] 

Mr. Cass took exception to an expression of Mr. Calhoun, calling 
Washington " the illustriout southerner^ " Our Washington — the 
Washington of our whole country — receives in this senate, the epithet 
of ' southerner,' as if that great man, whose distinguished characteristic 
was his attachment to his country, and his whole country, who was so 
well known, and who, more than any one, deprecated all sectional feeling 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 931 

and all sectional action — loved Georgia better than he loved New Hamp 
shire, because he happened to be born on the southern bank of the Poto- 
mac. I repeat, sir, that I heard with great pain, that expression from 
the distinguished senator from South Carolina. # * # 

We have been three months here, and what have we done ? Nothing. 
We have not passed a single law of the least national importance. We 
have occupied the whole time by the discussion of this question, and no 
practical result has been attained ; and present appearances do not indi- 
cate that such a result is near. But, though we have done nothing, we 
have ascertained that some things can not be done. We have ascertained 
(I think I may say with certainty) that no Wilmot proviso can be passed 
through this congress. That measure is dead. It is the latest, and I 
hope it is the last, attempt that will be made to interfere with the right 
of self-government within the limits of this republic. I think we may 
also say, that no Missouri compromise line can pass, and that no one 
expects or desires that it should pass. 

Mr. President, what was the compromise line ? Allow me to read 
the law which established it : 

" Sec. 8. And be it further enacted^ That in all that territory ceded 
by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which 
lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not 
included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery 
and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, 
whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is 
hereby, forever prohibited." 

Now, sir, what is that provision ? It is intervention north of the line 
of 36° 30', and non-intervention south of that line. Why, sir, there is 
not one southern senator on this floor, and not one southern member of 
the other house, nor indeed a southern man who understands the sub- 
ject, who would accept that line as a proper settlement of this question. 

Mr. FooTE, (in his seat.) I would not. 

Mr. Cass. Why, sir, the whole doctrine of equal rights and of non- 
intervention is taken away by it at once. Why, sir, putting out of 
view the constitutional objections to such an arrangement, it gives the 
south nothing, while it prohibits the people north of 36° 30' from exer- 
cising their own will upon the subject. The true doctrine of non-inter- 
vention leaves the whole question to the people, and does not divide 
their right of decision by a parallel of latitude. If they choose to have 
slavery north of that line, they can have it. 

Mr. Calhoun, (in his seat.) We are very competent to judge of that 
matter ourselves. 

Mr. Cass. Is there a senator on this floor who would accept of a 



932 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

proposition to apply the principle of non-intervention to a part of the 
territory, leaving to the people of the other portion to do as they please ? 
No, sir ; there is not a southern senator here who would vote for it. I 
will tell you, what would be voted for, has already been announced — a 
law declaratory, mandatory, or permissory, for the establishment of 
slavery south of the line of 36° 30'. The distinguished senator from 
South Carolina might be willing to accept a declaration that slavery 
does now exist, or that it shall exist, or may exist, south of a certain 
line; but I take it for granted that no senator from the south would be 
willing to abandon the ground of non-intervention, without some provi- 
sion like that. * # * 

Well, then, Mr. President, if these things are impossible — if they 
cannot be done — it remains to inquire what it is in our power to do. 

My own opinion is, sir, that we should take up the bill for the recap- 
ture of fugitive slaves, reported by the judiciary committee. I am dis- 
posed to suspend all our discussions, and to lay aside all other business, 
with a view to act upon that bill, without unnecessary delay, and to 
pass it in such form as would be acceptable to a majority of this body. 
That is a point upon which the south feels most acutely, and in regard 
to which it has the most serious cause of complaint. I have heard but 
one man in this body deny the existence of this evil, or the justice and 
necessity of providing an adequate remedy. # » # 

If I understood the senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) he inti- 
mated his belief that it was immoral to carry into eflFect the provision 
of the constitution for the recapture of fugitive slaves. That, sir, is a 
very strange view of the duties of a senator in this body. No man 
should come here who believes that ours is an immoral constitution ; 
no man should come here, and, by the solemn sanction of an oath, pro- 
mise to support an immoral constitution. No man is compelled to take 
an oath to support it. He may live in this country, and believe what 
he chooses with regard to the constitution ; but he has no right, as an 
honest man, to seek office, and obtain it, and then talk about its being 
so immoral that he can not fulfill its obligations. It is the duty of every 
man, who has sworn to support the constitution, fairly to carry its pro- 
visions into effect ; and no man can stand up before his fellow-citizenis 
and maintain any other doctrine, whatever reasons he may urge in his 
vindication. 

In one of the most disingenuous portions of the speech of the honor- 
able senator from New York, (Mr. Seward) — which itself was one of the 
most disingenuous I have ever heard — he speaks of " slavery having a 
reliable and accommodating ally in a party of the free states," and ho 
Bays he "bears witness to its fidelity to the interests of .slavery." 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIE? 933 

Now, I ask the senator from New York, if he believes there is a 
man in this senate from the north, whose course is influenced by his 
fidelity to slavery ; and if he does, what right he has to cast odium upon 
gentlemen who are associated with him in the high duties which belong 
to his position ? 

Mr. Seward. The senator addresses a question to me, and I rise for 
no other purpose than to answer it. I think it was Mr. Jefferson who 
said that the natural ally of slavery in the south was the democracy of 
the north. 

A senator. It was Mr* Buchanan. 

Mr. Seward. I have heard it attributed to Mr. Jefferson. How- 
ever this may be, I believe it. I assail the motives of no senator. I 
am not to be drawn into personal altercations by any interrogatories 
addressed to me. I acknowledge the patriotism, the wisdom, the purity 
of every member of this body. I never have assailed the motives of 
honorable senators in any instance, I never shall. When my own are 
assailed, I stand upon my own position. My life and acts must speak 
for me. I shall not be my own defender or advocate. 

Mr. FooTE. Do I understand the senator from New York as saying 
Mr. Jefferson asserted that the northern democracy was the natural ally 
of slavery ? He never said such a word. 

Mr. Cass. I will not touch upon that question ; but I will ask the 
senator from New York in relation to another point — and that is, 
if he meant it in the sense which Mr. Jefferson, or whoever may have 
used it, intended ? The one was intended as a commendation for their 
attachment to constitutional principles — the other as a slur upon a great 
party. 

Mr. Seward. I answer promptly and freely : I had no purpose of 
casting reproach upon, or of reflecting upon, any member of this body, 
or upon any person anywhere. The remark had no such connection, 1 
ask leave now to say, that such as I described is, in my view, the political 
organization of the parties of this country ; that slavery has the support, 
the toleration (given honestly, and from patriotic motives, I admit) of 
the party to which I referred ; and that its alliance with slavery consti- 
tutes its tower of strength. On the other hand, the party to which I 
belong, is a party which is more distinctly identified with the progress 
of the sentiment of freedom or emancipation, and therefore it is weaker 
in its alliances with the south. 

Mr. Dawson, of Georgia, wished to know if Mr. Seward belonged to 
the whig party and spoke its sentiments ? 

Mr. Seward said he spoke for no man but himself But in the dis- 
charge of his duty, lie alliw! biuii^elf to such a party as was most approxi- 



9B4 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

mate to his principles and sentiments. He had belonged to the whig 
party during all his active life, and he should be the last to leave it, 
because of the two great parties it was the most devoted to the cause of 
freedom and emancipation. 

Mr Cass, (resuming.) I was going to remark that, with respect to the 
creed of the whig party, or the orthodoxy of the senator from New 
York, it is a matter with which I have no concern ; but with respect to 
progress, I have something to say. My progress is within the constitu- 
tion. My age of progress is circumscribed there. If the senator from 
New York is going out of it, I do not believe in his progress at all. 
No, sir ! My object is to support the constitution which, under God, is 
the source of our prosperity and happiness. 

Mr. Seward, (in his seat.) That is mine. 

Mr. Cass. The senator from New York says, that also is his object. 
If it is, I think he has a very strange way of showing it, by pronouncing 
it immoral, and denying the validity of its obligations. It would last 
scarcely a day, if that senator, with his avowed principle of action, had 
the direction of the government. I do not say that it would be dissolved 
immediately, but the seeds of dissolution would be sown, and would 
ripen into a harvest of misfortune as speedily as the rankest vegetation 
gains maturity under a tropical sun. 

Some conversation and explanations here took place between Mr. 
Cass and Mr. Calhoun, in reference to the i*emarks of Mr. Calhoun in 
his speech, in relation to the means of saving the union ; which were, 
the immediate settlement of the slave question, and an amendment of 
the constitution : also in relation to the admission of California being 
made a test question ; which Mr. Cass understood to mean, that the 
admission of California would be followed by a dissolution of the union; 
a construction of his remarks which Mr. Calhoun disavowed. In regard 
to the word " now," he did not mean that the amendment to the consti- 
tution must be made instanter, but that an indication should be given 
DOW, that such amendment would be agreed to, leaving it to be carried 
through the ordinary process. 

Mr. Cass concluded his speech the next day. He said : I was 
remarking yesterday, when I resigned the floor, that there were certain 
things we could not accomplish, and others that, with equal certainty, 
we might take for granted we could do. Among the latter, was the bill 
providing for the recapture of fugitive slaves ; and another object, 
which I trust will be accomplished, is the providing of a government for 
the new territories. I think it essential to calm this agitation, and so 
long as these territories are left without a government, so long will the 
present state of things continue, and this agitation be kept up, which is 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 936 

BO harassing to the tranquillity, and dangerous to the peace, of the 
union. That a law may be passed authorizing the people of the terri- 
tories to govern themselves, without any Wilmot proviso being attached 
to it, is my wish and ray hope. 

Sir, we cannot stand before the country, and before the world, and 
object to the admission of California on the ground that has been urged. 
The objectioa is not to her boundaries, though that topic has been much 
debated. * * * I myself was at first startled at the boundary 
claimed, stretching as it does along the coast of the Pacific one thousand 
miles — a much greater extent than any one state in the union ought to 
possess. * » * But the country between the ocean and the sea is a 
narrow one, and east of the mountains is a desert, and in proportion to 
its extent, the quantity of arable land is small. Be the boundaries as 
they may, it is not probable that its population will ever be as great as 
that of some of the other states of this union. And if its southern 
boundary were to stop at the mountains, there would be left between 
them and the Mexican possessions a small district of country, which 
would have to remain for an indefinite period, perhaps forever, in a 
colonial condition. 

The senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) who I regret to seo 
is not in his seat to-day, docs not assume this ground as an objection to 
the admission of California. That objection rests upon her present 
position and mode of application ; because she has established a govern- 
ment of her own without passing through a territorial process, and comes 
here of her owu accord, and asks admission into this union. This 
ground of objection cannot be maintained in this age of the world, 
before the people of this country, and, I may add, the people of Chris- 
tendom. # * * 

There are two positions I have always maintained with reference to 
this subject — first, that congress, under the constitution, has no right to 
establish governments for the territories ; secondly, that under no cir- 
cumstances have they the right to pass any law to regulate the internal 
affairs of the people inhabiting them. The first may be a matter of 
necessity ; and when the necessity exists, if a senator votes for it, he 
votes upon his own responsibility to his constituents. If they believe 
the necessity and support him, he is safe, but if not, he must fall. If I 
had voted under such circumstances, I must have looked to my constitu- 
ents for my justification ; but under no circumstances could I have 
\oted for any law interfering with the internal concerns of the people of 
a territory. No necessity requires it ; there is no necessity which 
would justify it. 

Mr. Chase. Did I understand the senator as saying that, in voting 



SdO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

toT a bill to establish a government in the territories he would assume 
the exercise of any authority not given in the constitution ? 

Mr. Cass. The honorable senator will undoubtedly recollect, that in 
a historical document called the Nicholson letter, which subsequent 
circumstances have made somewhat important, I distinctly stated my 
views upon this subject, and those views have remained unchanged to 
the present hour. I maintained, that no power is given by the con- 
stitution to establish territorial governments, but that where an impe- 
rious necessity exists for such a measure, the legislator who yields to it 
must look to his constituents for his justification. 

Mr. Chase. I understood the senator to say, that there was no such 
authority given by the constitution ? 

Mr. Cass. I said, that if we do an act not authorized by the consti- 
tution, under a pressure of necessity, that act must be done upon our 
own responsibility ; and I refer the gentleman to the authority of Mr. 
Madison, who justified the action of the congress of the confederation, 
on the subject of territories, upon this ground — and upon this alone. 
If the gentleman will take the trouble to look at my speech on the 
Wilmot proviso, he will find my views on this point distinctly laid down. 
What is the objection in principle to the admission of California? 
Allow me to say, that great political rights and movements, in this age 
of the world, are not to be determined by mere abstract or speculative 
opinions. There is no want of heavy books in the world, which treat of 
political science ; but you need not go to them to ascertain the rights 
of men — either individuals or in communities ; if you do, you will lose 
yourself groping in a labyrinth, and where no man can follow you. If 
there are rights of sovereignty, there may be wrongs of sovereignty ; 
and this truth should be held in everlasting remembrance. And this is 
the case with regard to California. We have rights, and we have duties ; 
and if the former are sacred, the latter should be sacred also. One of 
these duties we have neglected to perform ; and we are told by gentle- 
men who have spoken here, that when a state wishes admission into the 
union, she should come to the door of congress and knock for admission. 
California has thus come, and knocked ; but no door is open to her, and 
she is to be told, " Go back and wait till we are ready." There is but 
one door through which you can enter, and that door we keep shut. 
You must pass through a territorial government ; but that government 
we have neglected to give you, and we are probably as far from estab- 
lishing it as ever. And such is the paternal regard we manifest toward 
one hundred thousand American citizens, who are upholding the flag of 
our country on the distant shores of the Pacific. A good deal has been 
said about precedents : I am not going to examine either their applica* 



PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OP 1S29. 937 

tion or authority, though it has been pretty clearly shovm by others, 
that they full}'' justify this measure of admission. 

About two months after the date of this speech of Gen. Cass, Mr. 
Calhoun, who had participated in this debate, died in the city of Wash- 
ington, on the 31st of March, 1850. His death was succeeded, in 1852, 
by that of his two distinguished associates in that body, Mr. Clay and 
Mr. Webster, The former died at Washington, on the 29th of June, 
of that year ; the latter in the following autumn, at his residence in 
Massachusetts. 



CHAPTER LXXIV. 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1852. INAUGURATION OF MR. PIERCE. 

The national democratic convention to nominate candidates for president 
and vice-president, met at Baltimore on the 1st of June, 1852. The Hon. 
John W. Davis, of Indiana, formerly speaker of the house of represen- 
tatives, was chosen president of the convention. 

The two-thirds rule, which was again proposed, was opposed on the 
ground that it enabled a minority to force the majority into their views. 
It was, however, adopted. Although the convention was more pacific 
than that of 1848, there was quite as great a difficulty in effecting a 
nomination. 

Gen. Cass received on the first ballot, 1 1 7 votes ; James Buchanan, 
93 ; Stephen A. Douglas, 20 ; Wm. L. Marcy, 27. The balloting, 
which did not begin until the 3d day, (June 3d,) ended for that day 
with the 17th ballot, which stood: For Cass, 99; Buchanan, 87; 
Douglas, 50 ; Marcy, 26. The next day's balloting closed with the 
33d trial, Cass having received 123 votes; Buchanan, 72 ; Douglas, 60 ; 
Marcy, 25. On the 5th, the Virginia delegation having retired for 
consultation, returned, and cast their votes for Franklin Pierce, of New 
Hampshire, who, on the 49th ballot, received the unanimous vote of the 
convention. 

William R. King, of Alabama, was nominated for vice-president. 

The whig convention, which met at the same place on the 16th of 
June, was also in session five days, having found it no less difficult to 
unite upon a candidate for president. John G. Chapman, of Maryland, 
was chosen president of the convention. Some delay in the proceedings 



I 

938 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

of the convention was caused by a contest for seats oetween some of the 
New York delegates. Unlike the convention of 1848, a platform of 
principles was adopted, by a vote of 227 to 60, and before any attempt 
at nomination had been made. 

Balloting commenced the 3d day of the session, Mr. Fillmore receiv- 
ing 132 votes; G-en. Scott, 131 ; Mr. Webster, 29. The next day began 
with the 7th ballot; and on the 53d, the result was, for Scott, 159; 
Fillmore, 112; Webster, 21; Scott having a majority. William A. 
Graham, of North Carolina, was nominated for vice-president. 

The declarations of sentiment, or platforms of the two parties were 
less antagonistic than usual. The distinctive principles of the respective 
parties were less prominently set forth ; while upon certain abstract 
questions, and the subject of slavery, the two conventions took the same 
ground. The democratic convention declared, 

" That congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with 
or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such 
states are the sole and proper judges of every thing appertaining to their 
own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution ; that all efforts of the 
abolitionists, or others, made to induce congress to interfere with ques- 
tions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calcu- 
lated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences ; and 
that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happi- 
ness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the 
union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political 
institutions. 

" That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace 
the whole subject of slavery agitation in congress ; and therefore the 
democratic party of the union, standing on this national platform, will 
abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the 
compromise measures settled by the last congress — the act for reclaim- 
ing fugitives from service or labor included ; which act being designed 
to carry out an express provision of the constitution, can not with fidel- 
ity thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its effi- 
ciency. 

" That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in 
congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under what- 
ever shape or color the attempt may be made." 

The whig convention makes the following declaration : 

" That the series of acts of the thirty-first congress — the act known 
as the fugitive slave law included — are received and acquiesced in by the 
whig party of the United States, as a settlement in principle and sub- 
stance, of the dangeroue and exciting question which they embrare; and 



THE INAUGURATION OF MR. PIERCE. 939 

eo far as they are concerned, we will maintain them and insist on 
their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the 
necessity of further legislation, to guard against the evasion of the law 
on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other, not impair- 
ing their present efficiency ; and we deprecate all further agitation of the 
question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace ; and will discounte- 
nance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever, 
or however the attempt may be made ; and we will maintain this system 
as essential to the nationality of the whig party of the union." 

The resolutions constituting the whig platform, were said to have been 
prepared or dictated by the southern delegates. Certain it is, that in no 
exclusively northern convention of whigs would such a declaration as the 
above have received the votes of the delegates from the free states who 
seemed to concur in their adoption. It is not doubted, however, that, 
from many of them they received a very reluctant support. 

All the southern delegates, except those from Delaware, voted on the 
first ballot for Mr. Fillmore ; aad were unwilling to pledge themselves 
to the support of Gen. Scott, until a letter from him was read to the 
convention, expressing his willingness to accept the nomination if ten- 
dered him, with the platform laid down by the convention. 

Judging simply from their respective platforms, it would seem that 
there was little ground for a very active and vigorous contest between 
the parties. The campaign, however, was conducted with the usual spirit, 
though with unequal advantages. A reunion of the democratic party 
had taken place. The compromise of 1850 was supposed to have settled 
the slavery controversy which had been the principal cause of difference 
between the two sections of that party. The whigs were less united. A 
majority of the party at the north was opposed to the late compromise 
measures, which, in the main, were in accordance with the views of Mr. 
Fillmore, and to which he had given his official sanction. Mr. Webster 
also was in favor of the compromise. Hence, the mass of the friends of 
these two gentlemen gave to the nomination at best a lukewarm support, 
and many of them no support at all, as was evident from the popular 
vote. Much had been expected from the military popularity of General 
Scott; but whatever advantage this may have given him, was more than 
counterbalanced by the disaffection of the friends of the disappointed 
candidates. There was an overwhelming defeat of the whig party. 

Of the 296 electoral votes, Mr. Pierce received 254. General Scott 
received only the votes of the states of Massachusetts, Vermont, Ken- 
tucky and Tennessee, in all, 42. 

The inauguration of Franklin Pierce as president of the United States, 
took place on the 4t i of Marclv, 1853. The inaugural address contained 



VW THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 

the usual eulogium upon the government. One of the evidences of the 
wisdom of its founders was found in the actual working of the system, 
which had allayed the apprehensions of dangers from extended territory, 
multiplied states, accumulated wealth, and augmented population. 

Special allusion was made in the address to the subject " which had 
recently agitated the nation." He said: " If the federal government 
would confine itself to the exercise of powers clearly granted by the con- 
stitution, it could hardly happen that its action upon any question 
should endanger the institutions of the states, or interfere with their 
rights to manage matters strictly domestic according to the will of their 
own people." His regard to the great compromise of the constitution, 
was thus expressed : " I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists 
in different states in this confederacy, is recognized by the constitution. 
I believe that it stands like any other admitted right ; and that the 
states where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the con- 
stitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called 
the ' compromise measures,' . . . are strictly constitutional, and to be 
unhesitatingly carried into effect. * * * j fervently hope that the 
question is at rest, and that no sectional, or ambitious, or fanatical ex- 
citement may again threaten the durability of our institutions, or obscure 
the light of our prosperity." 



CHAPTER LXXV. 

THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS OF KANSAS AND NEBRASKA. 

The 33d congress commenced its 1st session December 5, 1853. 
Lynn Boyd, a democratic member from Kentucky, was elected speaker, 
having received 143 votes against 74 for all other candidates. 

The message of President Pierce was the next day communicated to 
congress. Besides the ordinary subjects of legislation requiring the 
attention of congress, the slavery question was again introduced. Con- 
sidering the question as eff"ectually settled, he thus declared his purpose 
of leaving it undisturbed : 

" It is no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which 
may properly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of 
the people. But while the present is bright with promise, and the 
future full of demand and inducement for the exercise of active intelli- 
gence, the past can never be without useful lessons of admonition and 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 941 

instruction. If its dangers serve not as beacons, they will evidently fail 
to fulfill the object of a wise design. When the grave shall have closed 
over all who are now endeavoring to meet the obligations of duty, the 
year 1850 will be recurred to as a period filled with anxious apprehen- 
sion. A successful war had just terminated. Peace brought with it a 
vast augmentation of territory. Disturbing questions arose, bearing 
upon the domestic institutions of one portion of the confederacy, and 
involving the constitutional rights of the states. But, notwithstanding 
differences of opinion and sentiment, which then existed in relation to 
details and specific divisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, 
whose devotion to the union can never be doubted, had given renewed 
vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense of repose and security to 
the public mind throughout the confederacy. That this repose is to 
suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those 
who placed me here may be assured." 

Notwithstanding the determination, thus explicitly expressed, to 
endeavor to prevent a renewal of the agitation of this question, a mea- 
sure was already in train which, before the session was far advanced, 
gave the premonition of a " shock " even more violent than any which 
had preceded it. On the first day of the session, the day before the 
delivery of the message, senator Dodge, of Iowa, gave notice of a bill 
to establish a territorial government for Nebraska. On the 14th it was 
introduced and referred to the committee on territories ; and the next 
day it was reported by Mr. Douglas, chairman of that committee, with 
amendments. 

Some doubts having been expressed, whether the amendments repealed 
the Missouri compromise, a special report was made on the 4th of 
January, 1854, so amending the bill as to leave no doubt that that com- 
promise had been superseded by the acts of 1850. These measures 
were said to "rest upon the great principles of self-government, that the 
people should be allowed to decide the questions of their domestic insti- 
tutions for themselves." This report which proposed to open all that 
vast territory to the introduction of slavery, produced a general sensa- 
tion throughout the whole union, and revived the agitation to a degree 
never exceeded. And what excited special wonder, was, that such a 
proposition should be voluntarily and gratuitously tendered to the south ; 
which was not easily accounted for, except on the supposition that it had 
been prompted by political aspirations. 

On the 16th of January, Mr. Dizon, of Kentucky, gave notice of an 
amendment to exempt the territory from the application of the Missouri 
compromise. 

Tlie southern boundary of the proposed territory had been fixed or< 



912 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



the parallel of 36° 30'. On having been informed that that boundary 
would divide the Cherokee country, Mr. Douglas, on the 23d of Janu- 
ary, reported in favor of taking the line of the 37th degree, so as to run 
between the Cherokees and the Osages. He said also, that two agents 
elected by the people of that territory had arrived with petitions for two 
territories, Kansas and Nebraska, to be divided on the 40th parallel of 
latitude. This proposition had received the approval of the representa- 
tives of Iowa and Missouri ; and the committee therefore reported a 
substitute for the bill before the senate, providing for the division of 
the territory. 

The debate on the bill was opened by Mr. Douglas, on the 30th of 
January. In justification of his proposition to leave the whole territory 
open to slavery, he insisted that the Missouri compromise had been re- 
pealed. One of the grounds upon which this declaration was founded, was 
the action of congress in 1848, after the acquisition of territory from Mexi- 
co, when the senate voted into a bill a provision to extend the Missouri 
compromise line westward to the Pacific ocean ; which provision was 
defeated in the house. This defeat of that proposition Mr. D. construed 
into an abandonment of the compromise. It was this defeat of that 
compromise that created the struggle of 1850, and the necessity for 
making the new compromise of that year ; the leading feature of which 
was non-intervention by congress as to slavery in the territories — leaving 
the question to be settled by the people therein. It was of universal 
application — to the country both north and south of 36° 30'. 

Mr. D. said the legal effect of this bill, if passed, was neither to legis- 
late slavery into nor out of these territories, but to leave the people to 
do as they pleased. And why should any man, north or south, object 
to this principle ? It was by the operation of this principle, and not by 
any dictation from the federal government, that slavery had been abolish 
ed in half of the twelve states in which it existed at the time of the 
adoption of the constitution. 

In regard to Utah and New Mexico, Mr. D. said : " In 1850, we who 
resisted any attempt to force institutions upon the people of those 
territories inconsistent with their wishes and their right to decide for 
themselves, were denounced as slavery propagandists. Every one of us 
who was in favor of the compromise measures of 1850 was arraigned for 
having advocated a principle purposing to introduce slavery into those 
territories, and the people were told, and made to believe, that, unless 
we prohibited it by act of congress, slavery would necessarily and inevi- 
tably be introduced into these territories. 

" Well, sir, we did establish the territorial governments of Utah and 
New Mexico without any prohibition. We gave to these abolitionists 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 943 

a full opportunity of proving whether their predictions would prove true 
or false. Years have rolled round, and the result is before us. The 
people there have not passed any law recognizing, or establishing, or 
introducing, or protecting slavery in the territories. 

" I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, 
by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and 
climate, and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish 
institutions for a people contrary to their wishes ; yet, out of a regard 
for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, 
and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained 
the Missouri compromise so long as it was in force, and advocated its 
extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when that has been abandoned, 
when it has been superseded, when a great principle of self-government 
has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and abide 
in good faith, not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the last com- 
promise. 

" Sir, I do not recognise the right of the abolitionists of this country 
to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have done in 
their proclamations. Let them show when and where I have ever pro- 
posed to violate a compact. I have proved that I stood by the compact 
of 1820 and 1845, and.proposed its continuance and observance in 1848. 
I have proved that the free-soilers and abolitionists were the guilty 
parties who violated that compromise then. I should like to compare 
notes with these abolition confederates about adherence to compromises. 
When did they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made ? 

" Did not every abolitionist and free-soiler in America denounce the 
Missouri compromise in 1820? Did they not for years hunt down 
ravenously, for his blood, every man who assisted in making that com- 
promise ? Did they not in 1845, when Texas was annexed, denounce 
all of us who went for the annexation of Texas and for the continuation 
of the Missouri compromise line through it ? Did they not, in 1848, 
denounce me as a slavery propagandist for standing by the principles of 
the Missouri compromise, and proposing to continue it to the Pacific 
ocean ? Did they not themselves violate and repudiate it then ? Is 
not the charge of bad faith true as to every abolitionist in America, 
instead of being true as to me and the committee, and those who advo- 
cate this bill ? 

"They talk about the bill being a violation of the compromise measures 
of 1850. Who can show me a man in either house of congress who 
was in favor of those compromise measures in 1850, and who is not now 
in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as they 
please upon the subject of slavery, according to the principle of uiy 



944 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

bill? Is liiure oue ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado 
has beeu raised by abolitionists, and abolitionists alone. They have 
made an impression upon the public mind, in the way in which I have 
mentioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts ; and this whole 
organization against the compromise measures of 1850 is an abolition 
movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tender- 
footed democrats into their plot ; and, acting on what they supposed 
they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that 
their address was signed by the senators and a majority of the repre- 
sentatives from the state of Ohio ; but whea we come to examine signa- 
tures, we find no one whig there, no one democrat there; none but pure, 
unmitigated, unadulterated abolitionists." 

On the 3d of February, Mr. Chase, senator from Ohio, moved to 
strike out from the bill, the words, " was superseded by the principles of 
the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and," 
so that the clause would read : 

" That the constitution, and all laws of the United States which are 
not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within tke 
said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except 
the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri 
into the union, approved March 6, 1 820, which is hereby declared inope- 
rative." 

Mr. Chase then proceeded to reply to Mr. Douglas : 
" Mr. President, I had occasion, a few days ago, to expose the utter 
groundlessness of the personal charges made by the senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Douglas) against myself and the other signers of the independent 
democratic appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement 
which I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact or 
history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clause 
annulling the Missouri prohibition. # # # 

" A few days only have elapsed since the congress of the United States 
assembled in this capitol. Then no agitation seemed to disturb the po- 
litical elements. Two of the great political parties of the country, in 
their national conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at 
an end, and that henceforth that subject was not to be discussed in con- 
gress or out of congress. The president, in his annual message, had 
referred to this state of opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to 
maintain, as far as any responsibility attached to him, the quiet of the 
country. 

" The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by 
the chief magistrate of the country was complete, and a large majority 
of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRilTORIES. 945 

he spoke. A few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of these state- 
ments, and the permanency of this repose. We never believed that the 
acts of 1850 would prove to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery 
question. * # * 

" But, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing 
party in the country. Our number was small in congress. By some we 
were regarded as visionaries — by some as factionists ; while almost all 
agreed in pronouncing us mistaken. And so, sir, the country was at 
peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and 
upward to mid-heaven, not a cloud appeared ; to common observation 
there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky. But suddenly 
all is changed ; rattling thunder breaks from the cloudless firmament. 
The storm bursts forth in fury. * * * ^^-j^j ^qw we find ourselves 
in the midst of an agitation, the end and issue of which no man can 
foresee. 

" Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and contro- 
versy ? Not we, for we have introduced no question of territorial 
slavery into congress — not we, who are denounced as agitators and fac- 
tionists. No, sir : the quietists and the finalists, have become agitators ; 
they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions 
of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery. 

" This will not escape the observation of the country. It is slavery 
that renews the strife. It is slavery that again wants room. It is 
slavery with its insatiate demand for more slave territory and more slave 
states. 

" And what does slavery ask for now ? Why, sir, it demands that a 
time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded — a compact which 
has endured through a whole generation — a compact which has been uni- 
versally regarded as inviolable, north and south — a compact, the consti- 
tutionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented 
to abide. 

" It will not answer to violate such a compact without a pretext. 
Some plausible ground must be discovered or invented for such an act; 
and such a ground is supposed to be found in the doctrine which was 
advanced the other day by the senator from Illinois, that the compromise 
acts of 1850 ' superseded' the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30', 
in the act preparatory for the admission of Missouri. Ay, sir, ' super- 
seded' is the phrase — ' superseded by the principles of the legislation of 
1850, commonly called the compromise measures.' 

" It is against this statement, untrue in fact, and without foundation in 
history, that the amendment which I have proposed is directed." 

Mr. C. farther said, that, during the long discussion of the compro- 
60 



946 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

mise measures in 1850, it was never suggested that they were to super- 
sede the Missouri prohibition. At the last session, a Nebraska bill 
passed the house, came to the senate, and was reported on by Mr. Dou- 
glas, who also made a speech in its favor ; and in all there was not a 
word about repeal by supersedure. The senator from Missouri, (Mr. 
Atchison,) had also spoken upon the bill, and had distinctly declared, 
that the Missouri prohibition was not and could not be repealed." An 
extract was here read from the speeich of this senator, of which this 
is a part : 

' I have always been of opinion that the first great error committed m 
the political history of this country was the ordinance of 1787, render- 
ing the Northwest Territory free territory. The next great error was the 
Missouri compromise. But they are both irremediable. There is no 
remedy for them. "We must submit to them. I am prepared to do it. 
It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed. So far as 
that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of 
this territory now as next year, or five or ten years hence.' 

" Now, sir, when was this said ? It was on the morning of the 4th 
of March, just before the close of the last session, when that Nebraska 
bill, reported by the senator from Illinois, which proposed no repeal, and 
suggested no supersedure, was under discussion. I think, sir, that all 
this shows pretty clearly that up to the very close of the last session of 
congress, nobody had ever thought of a repeal by supersedure. Then what 
took place at the commencement of the present session ? The senator 
from Iowa, early in December, introduced a ^ill for the organization of the 
territory of Nebraska. I believe it was the same bill which was under 
discussion here at the last session, line for line, and word for word. If 
I am wrong, the senator will correct me. 

" Did the senator from Iowa then entertain the idea that the Missouri 
prohibition had been superseded ? No, sir ; neither he nor any other 
man here, so far as could be judged from any discussion, or statement, 
or remark, had received this notion." 

Mr. C. then referred to Mr. Douglas' own report of the 4th of Janu- 
ary last, made only thirty days ago. Nor did this report express the 
opinion that the compromise acts of 1850 had superseded the Missouri 
prohibition. The committee said that some affirmed and others denied, 
that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery in the territory acquired from 
Mexico, were still in force there; and they said that the territorial compro- 
mise acts stood clear of these questions. They simply providc-J " that the 
states organized out of these territories might come in with or without 
slavery as they should elect, but did not affect ■ the question whether 
slaves could or could not be introduced before the organization of state 
governments. That question was left to judicial decision." 



SLAVERY IN THE TERTIITORIES. 947 

So in respect to tte Nebraska territory. There were southern men 
who contended they would, by virtue of the constitution, take their slaves 
thither, and hold them there, notwithstanding the Missouri prohibition, 
while a majority of the American people, north and south, believed that 
prohibition constitutional and effectual. But did the committee propose 
to repeal it, or suggest that it had been superseded ? No. They said 
they did "not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of 
these controverted questions. Congress deemed it wise and prudent to 
refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirm- 
ing or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the 
true intent of the constitution and the extent of the protection 
afforded by it to slave property in the territories ; so your committee 
are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued 
on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or' repealing the eighth 
section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of 
the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute." 

" Mr. President, here are very remarkable facts. The committee on 
territories declared that it was not wise, that it was not prudent, that it 
was not right to renew the old controversy, and to rouse agitation. They 
declared that they would abstain from any recommendation of a repeal 
of the prohibition, or of any provision declaratory of the construction 
of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute." 

Mr. Chase traced the progress of the committee's bill. As published 
January 7th, it contained twenty sections. On the 10th, it was pub- 
lished again : it then had twenty-one sections. The omission of the last 
section was alleged to be a clerical error. It was, he said, a singular 
fact, that this twenty-first section was not in harmony with the commit- 
tee's report. It in effect repealed the Missouri prohibition, which the 
committee, in their report, declared ought not to be done. Was it pos- 
sible that this was a mere clerical error ? 

But the addition of jthis section did not help the bill. It declared 
among other things that the question of slavery in the territories and in 
the states to be formed therefrom, was to be left to the decision of the 
people through their representatives. But this did not meet the appro- 
bation of southern gentlemen, who claimed the right to take their slaves 
into the territories, notwithstanding any prohibition either by congress 
or by a territorial legislature. It was not enough that the committee 
had abandoned their report, and added this twenty-first section in direct 
contravention of its reasonings and principles ; the section must itself be 
abandoned and the repeal of the Missouri prohibition placed in a shape 
which would deny the slaveholding claim. He next alluded to tho 
amendment of the senator from Kentucky, "which came square up to tho 



948 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 

repeal and to tLe claim. That amendment probably produced some flut- 
tering and some consultation. It met the views of southern senators, 
and probably determined the shape which the bill had finally assumed." 
For " it was just seven days after the amendment had been offered by 
senator Dixon, that a fresh amendment was reported from the commit- 
tee on territories, in the shape of a new bill, enlarged to forty sections. 
This new bill cuts off from the proposed territory half a degree of lati- 
tude on the south, and divides the residue into two territories." This 
new bill thus provided for the repeal of the Missouri prohibition : 

" The constitution and all laws of the United States which are not 
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said 
territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the 
eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into 
the union, approved March 6, 1 820, which was superseded by the princi- 
ples of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise 
measures, and is therefore declared inoperative." 

" Doubtless, Mr. President, this provision operates as a repeal of the 
prohibition. The senator from Kentucky was right when he said it was 
in effect the equivalent of his amendment. Those who are willing to 
break up and destroy the old compact of 1820, can vote for this bill with 
full assurance that such will be its effect. But I appeal to them not to 
vote for this supersedure clause. I ask them not to incorporate into the 
legislation of the country a declaration which every one knows to be 
wholly untrue. I have said that this doctrine of supersedure is new. I 
have now proved that it is a plant of but ten days' growth. It was never 
seen or heard of until the 23d day of January, 1854. It was upon that 
day that this tree of Upas was planted : we already see its poison fruits. 

" The provision I have quoted abrogates the Missouri prohibition. It 
asserts no right in the territorial legislature to prohibit slavery. The 
senator from Illinois, in his speech, was very careful to assert no right 
of legislation in a territorial legislature, except subject to the restrictions 
and limitations of the constitution. We know well enough what the 
understanding or claim of southern gentlemen is in respect to these limita- 
tions and restrictions. They insist that by them every territorial legisla- 
ture is absolutely precluded from all power of legislation for the prohibi- 
tion of slavery. I warn gentlemen who propose to support this bill, that 
their votes for this provision will be regarded as admitting this claim." 

Having thus endeavored to prove that the doctrine that the Missouri 
compromise had been superseded by the acts of 1850, was new, Mr. 
Chase attempted to prove it unfounded. Mr. Douglas had charged as a 
misrepresentation, the statement in the appeal of the independent demo- 
crats, that the acts of 1850 were intended to apply to the territory 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 94® 

acquired from Mexico only ; and that they did not touch the existing 
exclusion of slavery from what was now called Nebraska. Mr. Chase 
referred to the report of the committee of thirteen in 1850, which dis- 
tinctly stated that the compromise measures ap|olied to tha nev/ly acquired 
tetrito'y ; '^nd he appeakJ to Gren Casf., whj sat near him_, whciher any 
thing had been said in the committee of thirteen, or elsewhere, which 
indicated a purpose to apply them to any other territory. (Mr. 
Cass remained silent.) Mr C. therefore assumed that he was correct; 
and he proceeded at length in attempting to disprove the assertion of Mr. 
Douglas, that the Missouri compromise had been superseded. He said : 

" But the senator from Illinois says that the territorial compromise 
acts did in fact apply to other territory than that acquired from Mexico. 
How does he prove that? He says that a part of the territory wa^ 
acquired from Texas. But this very territory which he says was acquired 
from Texas, was acquired first from Mexico. After Mexico ceded it to 
the United States, Texas claimed that that cession inured to her benefit. 
That claim, only, was relinquished to the United States. The case, then, 
stands thus : we acquired the territory from Mexico ; Texas claimed it, 
but gave up her claim. This certainly does not disprove the assertion 
that the territory was acquired from Mexico, and as certainly it does not 
sustain the senator's assertion, that it was acquired from Texas. 

" The senator next tells the senate and the country, that by the Utah 
act, there was included in the territory of Utah a portion of the old 
Louisiana acquisition, covered by the Missouri prohibition, which prohi- 
bition was annulled as to that portion by the provisions of that act. 
Every one at all acquainted with our public history knows that the 
dividing line between Spain and the United States extended due north 
from the source of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel of north latitude. 
That arbitrary line left within the Louisiana acquisition a little valley 
in the midst of rocky mountains, where several branches of the Grand 
river, one of the aflBiuents of the Colorado, take their rise. Here is the 
map. Here spreads out the vast territory of Utah, more than one hun- 
dred and eighty-seven thousand square miles. Here is the little spot, 
hardly a pin's point upon the map, which I cover with the tip of my 
little finger, which, according to the boundary fixed by the territorial 
bill, was cut off from the Louisiana acquisition and included in Utah. 
The account given of it in the senator's speech would lead one to suppose 
that it was an important part of the Louisiana acquisition. It is, in fact, 
not of the smallest consequence. There are no inhabitants there. * * * 
It was known that the Rocky Mountain range was very near the arbi- 
trary line fixed by the treaty, and nobody ever dreamed that the adop- 
tion of that range as the eastern boundary of Utah would abrogate the 



950 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Missouri prohibition. The senator reported that boundary line-. Did 
he tell the senate or the country that its establishment would have that 
effect ? No, sir : never. The assertion of the senator that a 'close exa- 
mination of the Utah act clearly establishes the fact that it was the 
intent, as well as the legal effect of the compromise measures of 1850 to 
supersede the Missouri compromise, and all geographical and territorial 
lines,' is little short of 4)reposterous. There was no intent at all, except 
to make a convenient eastern boundary to Utah, and no legal effect at all 
upon the Louisiana acquisition, except to cut off from it the little valley 
of the Middle Park." 

Mr. Douglas had charged the signers of the appeal with misrepresent- 
ation in assuming that it was the policy of the fathers of the republic to 
prohibit slavery in all the territories ceded by the old states to the union. 
Mr. Chase commenced with a reference to the sentiments of Jefferson, 
and traced the history of the action of the government on the subject, 
through a long period of years, in vindication of the statement contro- 
verted by Mr. Douglas. 

Mr. Chase's amendment was negatived, 13 to 30. 

Mr. Houston advocated the rights of the Indians included within the 
territories, who were to be disturbed by this bill. He adverted to the 
pledges made to them from time to time, and especially the assu- 
rance given them in the treaty of 1835, that their lands beyond the 
Mississippi should rever, without their consent, be included within 
the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any state or territory. He ob- 
jected to the bill on other grounds. There was no necessity for joining 
three such important subjects. The organization of Nebraska without a 
sufficient population to warrant it, nearly all being Indian territory ; the 
organization of Kansas, entirely held and occupied by Indians ; and 
the repeal of the Missouri compromise, an important consideration for 
the American people, were all placed in this omnibus shape, and pre- 
sented for action. He had on former occasions supported the Missouri 
compromise, assisted by the south, because they regarded it as a solemn 
compact. Texas, he said, had been admitted upon that principle. It 
was an express condition of her admission, that in all new states formed 
out of her territory north of 36° 30', slavery should be prohibited. 

Mr. H. said he had voted for the compromise of 1850; but he did 
not suppose that he was voting to repeal the Missouri compromise. He 
regarded it as a final settlement of this mooted question, this source of 
agitation. Great trials and emergencies, he feared, would arise between 
the north and the south. The south was in a minority : she could not be 
otherwise. If she should accede to the violation of a compact so sacred 
as tliis, she would set an example that would be followed when she did 



SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 951 

not desire it. He averred that he would resist every attempt to infringe 
or repeal the Missouri compromise. 

On the 15th of February, the question was taken on the substitute 
of the committee reported by Mr. Douglas, to strike out the words which 
declared the Missouri compromise to be superseded by that of 1850, and 
to insert the provision declaring the Missouri compromise inconsistent 
with the principles of nou-intervention of congress with slavery in the 
states and territories as recognized by the legislation of 1850, and inope- 
rative and void ; and declaring the people free to regulate their domes- 
tic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the 
United States. The substitute was adopted, 35 to 10. 

Mr. Chase then moved to insert a provision permitting the legislature 
to prohibit slavery. 

Mr. Badger held that, although the Missouri compromise of 1820 was 
in its terms applied to the territory acquired from Louisiana, because we 
then had no other territory whose destiny was to be settled by an act of 
congress ; yet as it was to be presumed that, if there had been other 
territory, it would have been brought under the operation of the same 
act, he regarded the provisions of that compromise as applicable to the 
territory since acquired. It was applied to Texas when that state came 
into the union. But he maintained that the principle of that compro- 
mise was repudiated by the legislation of 1850. Its application was 
insisted on by southern senators in many cases ; they asked nothing, they 
sought nothing, but the simple recognition of the Missouri compromise 
line ; but that was refused them ; and the territorial governments estab- 
lished in 1850, were constructed in utter disregard of that compromise, 
which he considered as no longer obligatory. 

Mr. Cass expressed his regret that this question of the repeal of the 
Missouri compromise, which opened all the disputed points connected 
with the subject of congressional action upon slavery in the territories, 
had again been brought before the senate. The advantages to result 
from the measure would not outweigh the injury which the ill-feeling 
accompanying the discussion would produce. Nor would the south de- 
rive any benefit from it, as no human power could establish slavery in 
the regions defined by these bills. He was, however, in favor of the 
amendment of the committee which declared that the people, whether 
in the territories, or in the states to be formed from them, were free to 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to th( 
constitution of the United States. 

Mr. C, in the course of his speech, replied to the. complaints that 
the south was excluded from, and robbed of the territories, and that they 
were appropriated to the north. While he repeated the opinion that 



952 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

congress was not authorized to restrain a person, by legal enactment, 
from taking slaves into any territory of the United States, he maintained 
that the prohibition of slavery by local legislation was not an exclusion 
of the aouth more than the north, as a slaveholder and a cjn-slive- 
holder could go into such territory on equal terms ; and he denied the 
charge of the south, that congress, by admitting a state whose constitu- 
tion interdicts slavery, is responsible for that act. 

In relation to the power of congress over the territories, he contended 
that the power granted by the constitution to regulate and " dispose of 
the territory and other property of the United States," meant simply the 
power to dispose of the public lands, as property, and did not include 
the power of life and death over the inhabitants. 

The debate, in which many other senators participated, was continued 
until the 2d of March, when Mr. Clayton moved to amend so as to disallow 
the right of suffrage and of holding office to foreigners who had declared 
on oath their intention to become citizens, and had sworn to support the 
constitution of the United States ; and to confer this right only on citi- 
zens of the United States. This amendment was adopted, 23 to 21. 
The bill was passed the next day, by a vote of 37 to 14. 

In the house, a bill had been reported on the 31st of January, by Mr. 
Richardson, of Illinois, for which, on the 8th of May, he offered a sub- 
stitute, which was substantially the senate bill, leaving out the amend- 
ment of Mr. Clayton. On the 22d, this substitute was adopted, 113 to 
100, and sent to the senate, where, on the 25th, it was concurred in, 35 
to 13. 

Thus terminated another contest on a question which, after a brief 
slumber, had been unexpectedly, and, as is generally believed, unneces- 
sarily revived, and which, from its nature, must continue to be a source 
of sectional controversy, so long as the territory of this republic shall be 
divided between slavery and freedom. 



APPENDIX. 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 

juiiY 4:tii, irre. 



A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OP 

AMERICA, IN [general] congress assembled.* 

When, in the course of human events, it becomes neces- 
sary for one people to dissolve the political bands which 
have connected them with another, and to assume, among 
the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to 
which the laws of nature and of nature's Grod entitle then . 
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, requii-es taat 
they should declare the causes which impel them to the 
separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men 
are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Crea- 
tor with [inherent and] unalienable rights ; that among certain 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that 
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among 
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the 
governed; that whenever any form of government becomes 
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to 
alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, lay- 
ing its foundation on such principles, and organizing its 
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to 
effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will 
dictate, that governments long established should not be 
changed for light and transient causes ; and accordingly 
all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed 
to suffer while evils are suflferable, than to right them- 
selves, by abolishing the forms to which they are accus- 

* This is a copy of the original draft of Jefferson, as reported to congress. The 
parts struck out by cong;ress are printed in italics, and enclosed in brackets ; 
and the parts added are placed in the margin, or in a concurrent column. 



954 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



tomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations 
[begun at a distinguished period and] pursuing invariably 
the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under 
absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to 
throw oflf such government, and to provide new guards for 
their future security. Such has been the patient suffer- 
ance of these colonies ; and such is now the necessity 
alter which constrains them to [expunge] their former systems 
of government. The history of the present king of Great 
repeated Britain, is a history of [imremitting] injuries and usurpa- 
all having tious, [among which ajjpears no solitary fact to co7itradict 
the uniform tenor of the rest ^ but all have] in direct object 
the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. 
To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, 
[for the truth of xvhich we pledge a faith yet uns^dlied 
hy falsehood.] 

He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome, 
and necessary for the public good. 

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immedi- 
ate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their 
operation, till his assent should be obtained ; and when so 
suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. 

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommoda- 
tion of large districts of people, unless those people 
-iT^^uld relinquish the right of representation in the legis- 
latu ■ .*a right inestimable to them, and formidable to 
tyrants only. 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unu- 
sual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of 
their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them 
into compliance with his measures. 

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly [and 
continually] for epposing, with manly firmness, his inva- 
sions on the rights of the people. 

He has refused, for a long time after such dissolutions, 
to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative 
powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the 
people at large for their exercise, the state remaining, in 
the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasion from 
without, and convulsions within. 

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these 
states ; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturali- 
zation of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage 
their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new 
appropriations of lands, 
obstructed He has [suffered] the administration of justice, [^otoZ/jr 
by to cease in some of these states,] refusing his assent to laws 

for establishing judiciary powers. 

He has made [our] judges dependent on his will alone 
for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and pay- 
ment of their salaries. 



APPENDIX. 955 

He has erected a multitude of new offices, \by a self- 
assumed poicer^ and sent hither swarms of new officers, to 
harass our people, and eat out their substance. 

He has kept among us in times of peace, standing armies 
\_and ships of war'] without the consent of our legislatures. 

He has aifected to render the military independent of, 
and superior to, the civil power. 

He has combined with others, to subject us to a jurisdic- 
tion foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by 
our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended 
legislation, for quartering large bodies of armed troops 
among us ; for protecting them by a mock trial from pun- 
ishment for any murders which they should commit on 
the inhabitants of these states ; for cutting off our trade < 

with all parts of the world ; for imposing taxes on us with- 
out our consent ; for depriving us [ ^ of the benefits of in many cases 
trial by jury ; for transporting us beyond seas, to be tried 
for pretended offenses ; for abolishing the free system of 
English laws, in a neighboring province ; establishing 
therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging Us boun- 
daries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instru- 
ment for introducing the same absolute rule into these 
[states ;] for taking away our charters, abolishing our most colonies 
valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our 
governments ; for suspending our own legislatures, and 
declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for 
us, in all cases whatsoever. 

He has abdicated government here, [withdrawing his by declaring 
governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and us out of his 
protection.] . protection, 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt and waging 
our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. war against 

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign us 
mercenaries, to complete the works of death, desolation, 
and tyrrany, already begun with circumstances of cruelty 
and perfidy, [ ] unworthy the head of a civilized nation, scarcely pa- 
He has constrained our fellow-citizens taken captive on ralleled in the 
the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to be- most barbar- 
come the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to ous ages, and 
fall themselves by their hands. totally 

He has [ ] endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of excited do- 
our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known mestic insur- 
rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all rections a- 
ages, sexes, and conditions [of existence.] mong us, ani 

[He has incited treasonable insurrectiofis of our fellow- has 
citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture, and confisca- 
tion of our property. 

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself 
violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the 
persons of a distant people, who never offended 1dm, cap- 
tivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemis- 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

phere^ or to incur miserable death in their transjmrtation 
thither. This piratical warfare^ the opprobium of infidel 
powers, is the tvarfare of the Christian king of Great 
Britain. Determined to keep open a market., where men 
, shovld be bought and s^My hi ha^ pror iitut id h''s nefativo 

fo^- suppressing every legvJatite attimpt to prohibit or co 
restrain, this execrable commerce. And that this assem- 
blage of horrors might want no fact of disthiguished die., 
he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms 
among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has 
deprived them, by murdering the people oti. whom he also 
obtruded them : thus paying off former crimes committed 
against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he 
urges them to commit against the lives of another. '\ 

In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned 
for redress, in the most humble terms ; our repeated peti- 
tions have been answered only by repeated injuries. 
A prince whose character is thus marked by every act 
firce which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a [ ] 

people, \who mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely 
believe, that the hardiness of one man adventured, within 
the short ccmi^ass of twelve years only, to lay a founda- 
tion so broad and so undisguised for tyra,nny, over a 
people fostered and fixed in principles of freedom.'] 

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British 
brethren. We have warned them from time to time of 
anunwarrant- attempts by their legislature, to extend [a] jurisdiction 
able over [these our states.] We have reminded them of the 

us circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, 

\n.o one of which could warrant so strange a pretension : 
that these were effected at the expense of our own blood and 
treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great 
Britain : that in constituting indeed our several forms of 
government, we had adopted one common king, thereby 
laying a foundation for peipetual league and amity ivith 
them, but that submission to their parliament, was no 
part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history mxiy 
have be credited, and] we [ ] appealed to their native justice and 
and we have magnanimity, [as well as to] the ties of our common kin- 
conjured dredto disavow these usurpations which [wo'e likely to] in- 
them by terrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have 
would inevi- been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, 
tably [a?id when occasions have been given them, by the regular 
course of their laws, of removing from their councils the 
disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election 
reestablished them in power . At this very tijne, too, they 
are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only 
soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mer- 
cenaries, to invade and destroy us. These facts have given 
the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids 
us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We rnu&t 



APPENDIX. 



957 



endeavor to forget our former lave for them, and hold ^hem 
as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace 
friends. We tnight have been a free and a great people 
together ; but a communication of granaeur and of free- 
dom, it seems, is below their dignity. Be it so, since they 
will have it. The road to hajojyiness and to glory is open We must 
to lis too. Wetvill tread it apart from them, and} acqui- therefore 
esce in the necessity which denounces our [eternal] sepa- 
ration [ ] I and hold them 

as we hold the 
rest of man- 
kind, enemies 
in war, in 
peace friends. 

We therefore, the representatives 
of the United States of America, in 
general congress assembled, appeal- 
ing to the Supreme Judge of the 
world for the rectitude of our inten- 
tions, do in the name, and by the 
authority of the good people of these 
colonies, solemnly publish and de- 
clare, that these united colonies are, 
and of right ought to be, free and 
independent states; that they are 
absolved from all allegiance to the 
British crown, and that all political 
connection between them and the 
state of Great Britain is, and ought 
to be, totally dissolved ; and that, 
as free and independent states, they 
have full power to levy war, con- 
clude peace, contract alliances, es- 
tablish commerce, and to do all 
other acts and things, which inde- 
pendent states may of right do. 

And for the support of this decla- 
tion, with a firm reliance on the 
protection of Divine Providence, we 
mutually pledge to each other our 
lives, our fortunes, and our sacred 
honor. 

The foregoing declaration was, by order of congress, engrossed and 
signed by the following members : 

JOHN HANCOCK. 

New Hampshire. — Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew 
Thornton. 

Massachusetts Bay. — Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat 
Paine, Elbridge Gerry. 

Rliode Island. — Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery. 



We therefore, the representatives 
of the United States of America, in 
general congress assembled, do in 
the name, and by the authority of 
the good people of these [^states re- 
ject and renounce all allegiance 
and subjection to the kings of Great 
Britain, and all others, who may 
hereafter claim by, through, or un- 
der them ; we utterly dissolve all 
political connectiomohich may here- 
tofm-e have subsisted bctiveen us and 
the people or parliament of Great 
Britain ; and finally toe do assert 
and declare these colonies to be free 
and independent states] and that, as 
free and independent states, they 
have full power to levy war, con- 
clude peace, contract alliances, es- 
tablish commerce, and to do all 
other acts and things which inde- 
pendent states may of right do. 
And for the support of this declara- 
tion, we mutually pledge to each 
other our lives, our fortunes, and our 
sacred honor. 



9S8 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Connecticut. — Roger Sl^.erman, Samuel HuntingtonjWilliam Williams, 
Oliver Wolcott. 

New York. — William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis 
Morris. 

New Jersey. — Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hop- 
kinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark. 

Pennsijlvania. — Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, 
John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wil- 
son, George Ross. 

Delaware. — Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas M'Kean. 

Maryland.— ^2im\xQ\ Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles 
Carroll, of Carrollton. 

Virginia.— George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, 
Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter 
Braxton. 

North Carolina.— WilViSim. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn. 

South Carolina. — Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward,#rr., Thomas 
Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton. 

Georgia. — Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton. 



ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. 

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, WE, THE TTNDER SIGNED, 
DELEGATES OF THE STATES AFFIXED TO OUR NAMES, SEND GREETING. 

Whereas, the delegates of the United States of America in congress 
assembled did, on the fifteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven, and in the second year 
of the independence of America, agree to certain articles of confedera- 
tion and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massa- 
chusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, 
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,* 
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in the words following, 
viz: 

Articles of Confederation mid perpetual Union between the States of 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay^ Rhode Island and Providence 
Plantations, Connecticvt, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, Maryland, \ irginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
and Georgia. 

Article 1. The style of this confederacy shall be, " the United 
States of America." 

Art. 2. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, 
and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confede- 
ration expressly delegated to the United States in congress assembled. 

Art. 3. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of 
friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their 
liberties, and their mutual and general welfare; binding themselves to 
assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, 
or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other 
pretence whatever. 

Art. 4. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship, and 
intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the 
free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugi- 
tives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immu- 
nities of free citizens in the several states ; and the people of each state 
shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall 
enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the 
same duties, impositions, and restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof 
respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as 
to prevent the removal of property imported into any state to any other 
state, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also, that no impo- 
sition, duties, or restriction, shall be laid oy any state on the property 
of the United States or either of them. 

If any person guilty of or charged with treason, felony, or other high 
misdemeanor, in any state, shall flee from justice, and be found in any 



960 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the governor or execu 
tive power of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed 
to the state having jurisdiction of his offense. 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the 
records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of 
every other state. 

Art. 5. For the more convenient management of the general interests 
of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such man- 
ner as the legislature of each state shall direct to meet in congress on 
the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to 
each state to recall its delegates or any of them, at any time within the 
year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. 

No state shall be represented in congress by less than two, nor by 
more than seven members ; and no person shall be capable of being a 
delegate for more than three years in any term of six years ; nor shall 
any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the 
United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any 
salary, fees, or emoluments of any kind. 

Each state shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, 
and while they act as members of the committee of the states. 

In determining questions in the United States in congress assembled, 
each state shall have one vote. 

Freedom of speech and debate in congress shall not be impeached or 
questioned in any court or place out of congress ; and the members of 
congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprison- 
ments, during the time of their going to and from and attendance on 
congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. 

Art. 6. No state without the consent of the United States in con- 
gress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy 
from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance, or treaty, with 
any king, prince or state ; nor shall any person holding any office of profit 
or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, 
emolument, office or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, 
or foreign state ; nor shall' the United States in congress assembled, or 
any of them, grant any title of nobility. 

No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or 
alliance whatever, between them, without the consent of the United States 
in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the 
same is to be entered into and how long it shall continue. 

No state shall lay any imposts or duties which may interfere with 
any stipulations in treaties entered into by the United States in con- 
gress assembled, with any king, price, or state, in pursuance of any trea- 
ties already proposed by congress to the courts of France and Spain. 

No vessel-of-war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except 
such number only as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in 
congress assembled for the defense of such state or its trade ; nor shall 
any body of forces be kept up by any state in time of peace, except such 
number only as in the judgment of the United States in congress assem- 
bled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the 
defense of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well-regu- 
lated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall 



APPENDIX. 96 1 

provide and have constantly ready for use, in public stores, a due num- 
ber of field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammuni- 
tion and camp equipage. 

No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the United 
States in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by 
enemies or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed 
by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so 
imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in congress 
assembled can be consulted ; nor shall any state grant commissions to any 
ships or vessels-of-war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be 
after a declaration of war by the United States in congress assembled, 
and then only against the kingdom or state, and the subjects thereof, 
against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as 
shall be established by the United States in congress assembled, unless 
such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels-of-war maybe 
fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, 
or until the United States in congress assembled shall determine otherwise. 

Art. 7. When land forces are raised by any state for the common 
defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed 
by the legislature of each state respectively, by whom such forces shall 
be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct, and all vacancies 
shall be filled up by the state which first made the appointment. 

Art. 8. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be 
incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the 
United States in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common 
treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to 
the value of all land within each state granted to or surveyed for any 
person, as such laud and the buildings and improvements thereon shall 
be estimated according to such mode as the United States in congress 
assembled shall from time to time direct and appoint. 

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the 
authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states, within 
the time agreed upon by the United States in congress assembled. 

Art. 9. The United States in congress assembled shall have the sole 
and exclusive right and power of determining on peace or war, except 
in the cases mentioned in the sixth article- -of sending and receiving 
ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances ; provided, that no 
treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the 
respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and 
duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from pro- 
hibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or com- 
modities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, 
what captures on laud or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes 
taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall 
be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal 
in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felo- 
nies committed on the high seas, and establishing courts for receiving 
and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures : provided, that 
no member of congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said 
courts. 

The United States in congress assembled shall also be the last lesort 

61 



962 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter 
may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, 
or any other cause whatever ; which authority shall always be exercised 
in the manner following : whenever the legislative or executive authority 
or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another shall present a 
petition to congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a 
Learing, notice thereof shall be given by order of congress to the legis- 
lative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day 
assigned for the appearance of the parties, by their lawful agents, who 
shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent commissioners or 
judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in 
question ; but if they can not agree, congress shall name three persons 
out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each 
party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning until the 
number shall be reduced to thirteen ; and from that number not less 
than seven nor more than nine names, as congress shall direct shall, in 
the presence of congress, be drawn out by lot ; and the persons whose 
names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or 
judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a 
major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the 
determination : and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day 
appointed, without showing reasons which congress shall judge sufScient, 
or being present shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to 
nominate three persons out of each state, and the secretary of congress 
shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing ; and the judg- 
ment and sentence of the court to be appointed in the manner before 
prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall 
refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear, or defend 
the claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce 
sentence or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, 
the judgment or sentence and other proceedings, being in either case 
transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress for the 
security of the parties concerned : provided, that every commissioner, 
before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath, to be administered by one 
of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state, where the 
cause shall be tried, " wcil and truly to hear and determine the matter 
in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favor, affec- 
tion, or hope of reward :" provided also, that no state shall be deprived 
of territory for the benefit of the United States. 

All controversies concerning the private right of soil, claimed under 
different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdiction as they 
may respect such lands and the states which passed such grants are 
adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time 
claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, 
shall, on the petition of either party to the congress of the United 
States, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as 
is before prescribed for decidir.^ disputes respecting territorial jurisdic- 
tion between different states. 

The United States in congress assembled shall also have the sole and 
exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin 
struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective states — 



APPENDIX. 963 

fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the United 
States — regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians 
not members of any of the states ; provided that the legislative right 
of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated — estab- 
lishing and regulating postoffices from one state k) another throughout 
all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing 
through the same, as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said 
office — appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of the 
United States elcepting regimental officers — appointing all the officers 
of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the ser- 
vice of the United States — making rules for the government and regu- 
lation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations. 

The United States in congress assembled shall have authority to 
appoint a committee to sit in the recess of congress, to be denominated 
" a committee of the states," and to consist of one delegate from each 
state ; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may 
be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States, under 
their direction — to appoint one of their number to preside, provided that 
no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one 
year in any term of three years — to ascertain the necessary sums of 
money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appro- 
priate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses — to borrow 
money or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting 
every half year to the respective states an account of the sums of money 
so borrowed or emitted — to build and equip a navy — to agree upon the 
number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its 
quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state; 
which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each 
state shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, 
arm, and equip them, in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the 
United States ; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equip- 
ped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on 
by the United States in congress assembled : but if the United States 
in congress assembled, shall, on consideration of circumstances, judge 
propsr that any state should not raise men or should raise a smaller 
number than its quota, and that any other state should raise a greater 
number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be 
raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped, in the same manner as 
the quota of such state, unless the legislature of such state shall judge 
that such extra number can not safely be spared out of the same ; in 
which case they shall raise, officer, clothe, arm, and equip, as many of 
such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers 
and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place 
appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in con- 
gress assembled. 

The United States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, 
nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into 
any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, 
nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and wel- 
fare of the United States or any of them, nor emit bills, uor borrow 
money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor 



964 THE AMERICAN ST-.TESMAN. 

ngree upon the number of vessels-of-war to be built or purchased, or the 
number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander-in- 
chief of the army or navy, unless nine states assent to the same; nor 
shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to 
day, be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the United 
States in congress assembled. 

The congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any 
time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that 
no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of sis 
mouths; and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, 
except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military ope- 
rations, as in their judgment require secresy; and the yeas and nays of 
the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on the jour- 
nal, when it is desired by any delegate ; and the delegates of a state, or 
any of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript 
of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay 
before the legislatures of the several states. 

Art. 10. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be 
authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of 
congress as the United States in congress assembled, by the consent of 
nine states, shall from time to time, think expedient to vest them with; 
provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exer- 
cise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states 
in the congress of the United States assembled is requisite. 

Art. 11. Canada, acceding to this confederation, and joining in tho 
measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to, 
all the advantages of this Union ; but no other colony shall be admitted 
into the same unless such admission be agreed to by nine states. 

Art. 12. All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, and debts 
contracted, by or under the authority of congress, before the assembling 
of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall 
be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for 
payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States and the public 
faith are hereby solemnly pledged. 

Art. 1 3. Every state shall abide by the decision of the United States 
in congress assembled, on all questions which, by this confederation, are 
submitted to them. And the articles of this confederation shall be inviola- 
bly observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall 
any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless 
such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the United States, and be 
afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every state. 

And whereas it has pleased the great Governor of the world to incline 
the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to 
approve of and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confedera- 
tion and perpetual union : know ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, 
by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, 
by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constitu- 
ents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said 
articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the 
matters and things therein contained; and we do further solemly plight 
uiid engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide 



APPENDIX. 965 

by the determinations of the United States in congress assembled, on all 
questions which, by the said confederation, are submitted to them ; and 
that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we 
respectively represent ; and that the union be perpetual. 

In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in congress. 
Done at Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, the ninth day of 
July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy- 
eight, and in the third year of the independence of America. 

New Hampshire. — Josiah Bartlett, John "Wentworth, Jr. 

Massachusetts Bay. — John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Ger- 
ry, Francis Dana, James Lovell, Samuel Holten. 

Rhode Island. — William EUery, Henry Marchant, John Collins. 

Connecticut. — Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, Oliver Wolcott, 
Titus Hosmer, Andrew Adams. 

New York. — James Duane, Francis Lewis, William Duer, Gouver- 
neur Morris. 

New Jersey. — John Witherspoon, Nath. Scudder. 

Pennsylvania. — Robert Morris, Daniel Roberdeau, Jonathan Bayard 
Smith, William Clingan, Joseph Reed. 

Delaivare. — Thomas M'Kean, John Dickinson, Nicholas Van Dyke. 

Maryland. — John Hanson, Daniel Carroll. 

Virginia. — Richard Henry Lee, John Banister, Thomas Adams, 
John Harvie, Francis Lightfoot Lee. 

North Carolina. — John Penn, Constable Harnett, John Williams. 

South Carolina. — Henry Laurens, William Henry Drayton, John 
Matthews, Richard Hudson, Thomas Hey ward, Jr. 

Georgia. — John Walton, Edward Telfair, Edward Langworthy. 



CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 



We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the com- 
mon defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Con- 
stitution for the United States of America. 

ARTICLE I. 

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house 
of representatives. 

Sec. 2. The house of representatives shall be composed of members 
chosen every second year, by the people of the several states ; and the 
electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of 
the most numerous branch of the state legislature. 

No person shall lio a representative who shall not have attained to the 
age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United 
States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in 
which he shall be chosen. 

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned amoug the sev- 
eral states which may be included within this union, according to their 
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole 
number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of 
years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. 
The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first 
meeting of the congress of the United States, and within every subsequent 
term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The num- 
ber of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but 
each state shall have at least one representative ; and until such enumer- 
ation shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to 
choose th7-ee ; Massachusetts, ei^Ai ; Rhode Island and Providence Plan- 
tations, one; Connecticut, ^ye,- New York, six; New Jersey, four , 
Pennsylvania, eight; Delaware, one; Maryland, six; Virginia, te}i ; 
North Carolina, Jive ; South Carolina, Jive ; and Georgia, three. 

When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the 
executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such 
vacancies. 

The house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other 
officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment. 

Sec. 3. The senate of the United States shall be composed of two 
senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years ; 
and each senator shall have one vote. 



APPENDIX. 967 

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first 
election, they shall be divided as equally as may be, into three classes. 
The seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expira- 
tion of the second year ; of the second class at the expiration of the 
fourth year ; and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year ; 
so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies hap- 
pen, by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of 
any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments, until 
the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. 

No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age 
of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and 
who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he 
shall be chosen. 

The vice-president of the United States shall be president of the 
senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. 

The senate shall choose their other officers, and also a president pro 
tempore, in the absence of the vice-president, or when he shall exercise, 
the office of president of the United States. 

The senate shall have the sole power to try all impean^- 
sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath of -"^ 
president of the United States is tn'"'' 
and no person shall be con?''-' ' " 
of the members pres' 

Judgment, in case, 
removal from office, a 

honor, trust, or profit, ^ convicted 

shall, nevertheless, be . _^uc, trial, judgment, 

and punishment, accora 

Sec. 4. The times, p , -uu manner of holding elections for sena- 
tors and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legisla- 
ture thereof; but the congress may at any time, by law, make or alter 
such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators. 

The congress shall assemble at least once in every year ; and such 
meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by 
law appoint a difi'erent day. 

Sec. 5. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and 
qualifications of its own members ; and a majority of each shall consti- 
tute a quorum to do business ; but a smaller number may adjourn from 
day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of abseut, 
members, in such manner and under such penalties, as each house may 
provide. 

Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its 
members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two- 
thirds, expel a member. 

Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to 
time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, 
require secrecy ; and the yeas and nays of the members of either house, 
on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be 
entered on the journal. 

Neither house, during the session of congress, shall, without rho con- 
pent of tbe other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other 
place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting. 



968 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Sec. 6. The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation 
for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury 
of the United States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, 
and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attend- 
ance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and return- 
ing from the same ; and for any speech or debate in either house, they 
shall not be questioned in any other place. 

No senator or representative shall, during the time for v?hich he was 
elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United 
States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall 
have been increased, during such time; and no person holding any office 
under the United States, shall be a member of eiiher house during his 
continuance in office. 

Sec. 7 All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of 
representatives ; but the senate may propose, or concur with, amend- 
ments, as on other bills. 

Every bill which shall have passed the house of representatives and 
the senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of 
the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall 
return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have origi 
nst-ed, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and pro- 
ceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that 
house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the 
objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, 
and, if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. 
But, in all such cases, the votes of both houc^s shall be determined by 
yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the 
bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any 
bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays 
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a 
law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the congress, by their 
adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. 

Every order, resolution or vote, to which the concurrence of the sen- 
ate and house of representatives may be necessary, (except on a question 
of adjournment,) shall be presented to the president of the United States, 
and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being 
disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the senate and 
house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed 
in the case of a bill. 

Sec. 8. The congress shall have power : 

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts 
and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United 
States ; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout 
the United States : 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States : 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several 
sitatc'S, and with the Indian tribes : 

To establish a uniform rate of naturalization, and uniform laws on tho 
subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States : 

To coin money ; to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin ; 
a,-.i.;l iix tho standard of weidits and measures ; 



APPENDIX. 669 

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and 
current coin of the United States : 

To establish post offices and post roads : 

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for 
limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their 
respective writings and discoveries : 

To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court : 

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, 
and offenses against the law of nations : 

To declare war ; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; and make 
rules concerning captures on land and water : 

To raise and support armies ; but no appropriation of money to that 
use shall be for a longer term than two years : 

To provide and maintain a navy : 

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and 
naval forces : 

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the 
union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions : 

To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and 
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of 
the United States; reserving to the states respectively, the appointment 
of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the 
discipline prescribed by congress : 

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such 
district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular 
states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of the government 
of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places pur- 
chased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same 
shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and 
other needful buildings : And, 

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying 
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this 
constitution in the government of the United States, or in any depart- 
ment or officer thereof 

Sec. 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the 
states now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited 
by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight ; 
but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding 
ten dollars for such person : 

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended 
unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may 
require it. 

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. 

No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to 
the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. 
No preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or rev- 
enue, to the ports of one state, over those of another ; nor shall vessels 
bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in 
another. 

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in (onisequence of 



970 THE AMERICAN STATESMAxV, 

appropriations made by law ; and a regular statement and account of tho 
receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from 
time to time. 

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States ; and no 
person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the 
consent of the congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title 
of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. 

Sec. 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confedera- 
tion ; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; coin money ; emit bills of 
credit ; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of 
debts ; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the 
obligation of contracts ; or grant any title of nobility. 

No state shall, without the consent of the congress, lay any imposts 
or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely neces- 
sary for executing its inspection laws : and the net produce of all duties 
and imposts laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use 
of the treasury of the United States ; and all such laws shall be subject 
to the revision and control of the congress. No state shall, without the 
consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of 
•war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another 
state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, 
or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. 

ARTICLE II. 

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a president of the 
United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of 
four years, and, together with the vice-president, chosen for the same 
term, be elected as follows : 

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof 
may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators 
and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress j 
but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or 
profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. 

The electors shall meet in their respective statos, and vote by ballot 
for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the 
same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the per- 
sons voted for, and of the fiumber of votes for each, which list they shall 
sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the 
United Statos, directed to the president of the senate. The president 
of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of represen- 
tatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. 
The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president, 
if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed ; 
and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal 
number of votes, then the house of representatives shall immediately 
choose by ballot one of them for president; and if no person have 
a majority, then, from the five highest on the list, the said house shall, 
in like manner, choose the president. But in choosing the president, 
the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state 
having one vote: a quorum for tiiis purpose shall consist of a member 
or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of the states 



APPENDIX. 971 

shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the 
president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors, 
shall be the vice-president. But if there should remain two or more 
who have equal votes, the senate shall choose from tliem, by ballot, the 
vice-president. 

[By the 12th article of amendment, the above clause has been 
repealed.] 

The congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the 
day on which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same 
throughout the United States. 

No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United 
States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible 
to the office of president ; neither shall any person be eligible to that 
office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been 
fourteen j^ears a resident within the United States. 

In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, 
resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said 
office, the same shall devolve on the vice-president, and the congress may, 
by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, 
both of the president and vice-president, declaring what officer shall then 
act as president; and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disabil- 
ity be removed, or a president shall be elected. 

The president shall, at stated times, receive for his services a com- 
pensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the 
period for which he shall have been elected ; and he shall not receive, 
withiii that period, any other emolument from the United States, or any 
of them. 

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the follow- 
ing oath or affirmation : 

" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the 
office of President of the United States ; and will, to the best of my 
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United 
States." 

Sec. 2. The president shall be commander-in-chief of the army and 
navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when 
called into the actual service of the United States ; he may require the 
opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive depart- 
ments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices ; 
and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses 
against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. 

He shall have power by, and with the advice and consent of the sen- 
ate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur : 
and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the 
senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, 
judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, 
whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which 
shall be established by law : but the congress may, by law, vest the 
appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the presi- 
dent alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. 

The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may hap- 
pen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shaL 
i;?pire at the end of their next session. 



072 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Sec. 3. He sliall from time to time 'give to the congress information 
of the state of the union ; and recommend to their consideration such 
measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. He may, on 
extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them ; and, in 
case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjourn- 
ment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. He 
shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers. He shall take 
care that the laws be faithfully executed ; and shall commission all the 
officers of the United States. 

Sec. 4. The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the 
United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and 
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 



ARTICLE III. 

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested 
in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may, 
from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges both of the supremo 
and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior ; and 
shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which 
shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. 

Sec. 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, 
arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties 
made, or which shall be made, under their authority ; to all cases affect- 
ing ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls ; to all cases of 
admiralty and -maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the 
United States shall be a party, to controversies between two or more 
states ; between a state and citizens of another state ; between citizens 
of different states ; between citizens of the same state claiming lands 
under, grants of different states ; and between a state, or the citizens 
thereof; and foreign states, citizens or subjects. 

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls 
and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have 
original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme 
court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with 
such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congi'ess shall make. 

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by 
jury ; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes 
shall have been committed ; but when not committed within any state, 
the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law 
have directed 

Sec. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levy- 
ing war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid 
and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the 
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open 
court. 

The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason ; 
but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, 
except during the life of the person attainted. 



APPENDIX. 973 

ARTICLE IV. 

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given, in each state, to the 
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And 
the congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such 
acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. 

Sec. 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privi- 
leges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, 
who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand 
of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered 
up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. 

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, 
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein, be discharged from such service or labor ; but shall be delivered 
up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. 

Sec. 3. New states may be admitted by the congress into this union ; 
but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any 
other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more 
states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the 
states concerned, as well as of the congress. 

The congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful 
rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belong- 
ing to the United States ; and nothing in this constitution shall be so 
construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any 
particular state. 

Sec. 4. The United States shall guaranty to every state in this union, 
a republican form of government ; and shall protect each of them against 
invasion, and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when 
the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. 

ARTICLE V. 

The congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it neces 
sary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the applica- 
tion of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a 
convention for proposing amendments ; which, in either case, shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when rati- 
fied by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by con- 
ventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratifi- 
cation may be proposed by the congress : Provided, that no amendment 
which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and 
eight, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth 
section of the first article ; and that no state, without its consent, shall 
be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. ' 

ARTICLE VJ. 

All debts contracted, and engagements entered into, before the adop 
tion of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United States unde» 
this constitution, as under the confederation. 



t>74 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be 
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be mado 
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of 
the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything 
in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members 
of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, 
both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound, by 
oath or affirmation, to support this constitution ; but no religious test 
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under 
the United States. 

ARTICLE VIL 

The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient 
for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying 
the same. 

Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the states present, the 
seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the 
United States of America, the twelfth. In witness whereof we have 
hereunto subscribed our names. 

GEORGE WASHINGTON, 
President^ and Deput]) from Virginia, 

New Hampshire. — John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman. 

MassacJmsctts. — Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King. 

Connecticut. — Wm. Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman. 

New York. — Alexander Hamilton. 

Neio Jersey. — "William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, 
Jonathan Dayton. 

Pennsylvania. — Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, Thomas Fitz- 
simmons, James Wilson, Thomas Mifflin, George Clymer, Jared Inger- 
soll, Gouverneur Morris. 

JDelaware. — George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, 
Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom. 

Maryland. — James M 'Henry, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel 
Carroll. 

Virginia. — John Blair, James Madison, Jr. 

North Carolina. — William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaighi, Hugh 
Williamson. 

South Carolina. — John Rutledge, Charles Pinekney, Pierce Butler, 
Charles Cotesworth Pinekney. 

Georgia. — William Few, Abraham Baldwin. 

Attest: William Jackson, Secretary. 



ArpENDix. 975 



AMENDMENTS. 

Article I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the 
freedom of speech or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to 
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

Art. II. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of 
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed. 

Art. III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any 
bouse without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of war, but in a man- 
ner to be prescribed by law. 

Art. IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
tiouses, papers and eflfects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 
shall not be violated ; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable 
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the 
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

Art. V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise 
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, 
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when 
m actual service, in time of war or public danger ; nor shall any person 
be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or 
ximb, nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against 
himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due pro- 
cess of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without 
just compensation. 

Art. VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and 
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall 
have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature 
and cause of the accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, 
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 

Art. VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy 
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved , 
and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court 
of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. 

Art. VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines 
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Art. IX. The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall 
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Art. X. The powers not delegated to the United States, by the con- 
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states 
respectively, or to the people. 

Art. XI. The judicial power of the United States shall not be con- 
strued to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted 
against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by 
citizens or subjects of any foreign state. 

Art. XII. The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote 



976 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Dy ballot for president and vice-president, one of whom, at least, shall 
not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves ; they shall name 
jn their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots 
the person voted for as vice-president, and they shall make distinct lists 
of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as 
vice-president, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall 
sign and certify, and tran^iit sealed to the seat of the government of 
the United States, directed to the president of the senate ; — the president 
of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of represen- 
tatives, open,all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted ; — 
the person having the greatest number of votes for president, shall be 
the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of 
electors appointed ; and if no person have such majority, then, from the 
persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of 
those voted for as president, the house of representation shall choose 
immediately, by ballot, the president. But in choosing the president, 
the votes shall be taken by states, the representatives from each state 
having one vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member 
or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the 
states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the house of representa- 
tives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall 
devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then 
the vice-president shall act as president, as in the case of the death or other 
constitutional disability of the president. The person having the greatest 
number of votes as vice-president, shall be the vice-president, if such 
number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and 
if no person have a majority, then, from the two highest numbers on the 
list, the senate shall choose the vice-president ; a quorum for the pur- 
pose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and a 
majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no 
person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligi- 
gible to that of vice-president of the United States. 



APPENDIX. 



977 



NOTES. 



^ OTE A. — Page 92. 

The following is a statement of the number and amount of the issues 
of continental money during the revolutionary war, designating each 
issue, and its amount, as the same appears in the journals of the conti- 
nental congress. 



WHEN AUTHORIZED. 



1776. June 22 

July 25 

Nov. 29 

1776, Feb. 27 

May 9 and 27 

^uly 22, and Aug. 13. 
2 and Dec. 28.. 

26 

20 

15 

7 

3 



Nov. 

1777, Feb. 
May 
Aug, 
Nov. 
Dec. 

1778, Jan. 8, 
Jan. 22 
Feb. 16 
March. 5 
April 4 

11 

18 

1778, May 22 

June 20 



S2,000,000 
1,000,000 
3,000,000 
4,000,000 
5,000,000 
5,000,000 
5,000,000 
5,000,000 
5,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
2,000,000 
2,000,000 
2,000,000 
1,000,000 
5,000,000 
5,000,000 
5,000,000 
5,000,000 



WHEN AUTHORIZED. AMOUNT. 

1778, July 30 $5,000,000 

Sept. 5 5,000,000 

26 10,000.000 

Nov. 4 10,000,000 

Dec. 14 10.000,000 

1779, Feb. 3 5,000,160 

19 5,000,160 

April 1 5,000,160 

May 5 10,000,000 

Jan. 14, and May 7.. . 50,000,400 

June 4 10,000,100 

July 17 5,000,100 

do 10,000,100 

Sept. 17 5,000,180 

do 10,000,180 

Oct. 14 5,000,180 

Nov. 17 6,000,040 

do 6,050,500 

Nov. 29 10,000,140 



$246,052,400 



Note ^.—Page 146. 

To readers unacquainted with the rules of proceeding in legislative 
assemblies, it may be of service to explain the diiference between the 
forms of deliberation and action in committees of the whole and those 
observed in the house. While sitting as a committee of the whole, the 
body is not called the house, or the senate. The members, on motion, 
resolve themselves, by vote, into a committee of the whole ; and the pre- 
siding officer calls to the chair another member, who is not addressed as 
speaker or president, but as chairman. Important measures are usually 
referred to the <3ommittee of the whole to be considered and amended 
before they are disposed of by the house. The one object of instituting 
such committee is to afford greater freedom of discussion, as members, 
in committee speak as often as they please, provided they can obtain the 
floor. When a bill has been duly considered and amended, the speaker 
resumes the chair, and the chairman of the committee of tlie whole 
reports the bill to the house, or to the senate, as the case may be. 

02 



978 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Note C. — Page 202. 

" Essex Junto" was the name given to certain ultra federalists, op- 
posed to John Adams, and entertaining, as was alleged, strong par- 
tialities for England. Among them were the members of the cabinet 
who were dissatisfied with his mildness towards France. Some of the 
leading ones resided in Essex county, Massachusetts : Hence the name. 

Note D.—Page 420. 

During the excitement caused by the passage of the tariff act of 182S, 
which was so vehemently denounced at the south, as both unconstitu- 
tional and impolitic, Mr. Madison addressed to Joseph C. Cabell, Esq., 
in September and October of that year, two letters in vindication of the 
protective system ; one on its constitutionality, and the other on its 
expediency. Extracts from these letters are here given : 

" The constitution vests in congress, expressly, ' the power to lay and 
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;' and ' the power to regulate 
trade.' 

'' That the former power, if not particularly expressed, would have 
been included in the latter as one of the objects of a general power to 
regulate trade, is not necessarily impugned by its being so expressed. 
Examples of this sort can not sometimes be easily avoided, and are to be 
seen elsewhere in the constitution. Thus the power ' to define and pun- 
ish offenses against the law of nations,' includes the power, afterwards 
particularly expressed, ' to make rules concerning captures,' &c., from 
offending neutrals. So also a power ' to coin money' would doubtless 
include that of ' regulating its value,' had not the latter power been 
expressly inserted. The term taxes, if standing alone, would certainly 
have included duties, imposts and excises. In another clause it is said, 
'no tax or duties shall be laid on exports,' &c. Here, the two terms are 
used as synonymous. And in another clause, where it is said ' no stato 
shall lay any imposts or duties,' &c., the terms imposts and duties are 
synonymous. 

" It is a simple question under the constitution of the United States, 
whether ' the power to regulate trade with foreign nations' as a distinct 
and substantive item in the enumerated powers, embraces the object of 
encouraging by duties, restrictions, and prohibitions, the manufactures 
and products of the country ? And the aflarmative must be inferred 
from the following considerations : 

" 1. The meaning of the phrase ' to regulate trade,' must be sought in 
the general use of it; in other words, in the objects to which the power 
was generally understood to be applicable, when the phrase was inserted 
in the constitution. 

" 2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial and 
manufacturing nations, as embracing the object of encouraging manufac- 
tures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named. 

" 3. This had been particularly the case with Great Britain, whose 
t^ommercial vocabulary is the parent of ours. A primary object of her 
commercial regulations is well known to have been the protection and 
ciicor.raf/enient of her manufactures. 

" 4. Such was understood to be a proper use of the power by the states 



APPENDIX. 979 

most prepared for manufacturing industry, whilst retaining the power 
over their foreign trade. 

" 5. Such a use of the power, by congress, accords with the intention 
and expectation of the states, in transferring the power over trade from 
themselves to the government of the United States. This was emphati- 
cally the case in the eastern, the more manufacturing members of the 
confederacy. Hear the language held in the convention of Massachusetts. 

" 6. If congress have not the power, it is annihilated for the nation ' 
a policy without example in any other nation. 

" 7. If revenue be the sole object of a legitimate impost, and the 
encouragement of domestic articles be not within the power of regulating 
trade, it would follow that no monopolizing or unequal regulations of 
foreign nations could be counteracted ; that neither the staple articles of 
subsistence, nor the essential implements for the public safety, could, 
under any circumstances, be insured or fostered at home, by regulations 
of commerce, the usual and most convenient mode of providing for both, 
and that the American navigation, though the source of naval defense, 
of a cheapening competition in carrying our valuable and bulky articles 
to market, and of an independent carriage of them during foreign wars, 
when a foreign navigation might be withdrawn, must be at once aban- 
doned, or speedily destroyed ; it being evident that a tonnage duty in 
foreign ports against our vessels, and an exemption from such a duty in 
our ports, in favor of foreign vessels, must have the inevitable effect of 
banishing ours from the ocean. 

" To assume a power to protect our navigation, and the cultivation 
and fabrication of all articles requisite for the public safety, as incident 
to the war power, would be a more latitudinary construction of the text of 
the constitution, than to consider it as embraced by the specified power to 
regulate trade ; a power which has been exercised by all nations for 
those purposes, and which effects those purposes with less of interference 
with the authority and eonveniency of the states, than might result froir 
internal and direct modes of encouraging the articles, any of which modes 
would be authorized, as far as deemed 'necessary and proper,' by con- 
sidering the power as an incidental power. 

" 8. That the encouragement of manufactures was an object of the 
power to regulate trade, as proved by the use made of the power for that. 
object, in the first session of the first congress under the constitution ; 
when among the members present were so many who had been members 
of the federal convention which framed the constitution, and of the state 
conventions which ratified it ; each of these classes consistingof mem- 
bers who had opposed and who had espoused the constitution in its actual 
form. It does not appear from the printed proceedings of congress on 
that occasiov!, that the power was denied by any of them, and it may be 
remarked, that members from Virginia, in particular, as well of the 
anti-federal as the federal party, the names then distinguishing those 
who had opposed and those who had approved the constitution, did not 
hesitate to propose duties, and suggest prohibitions in favor of several 
articles of her production. By one a duty was proposed on mineral 
coal in favor of Virginia coal-pits ; by another, a duty on hemp was pro- 
posed, to encourage the growth of that article ; and by a third, a prohi- 
bition of even foreign beef was suggested, as a measure of sound policy. 



980 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



" A further evidence in support of the constitutional power to protect 
end foster manufactures by regulations of trade, an evidence that ought, 
of itself, to settle the question, is the uniform and practical sanction 
given to the power, by the general government, for nearly forty years; 
with a concurrence or acquiescence of every state government, throughout 
the same period ; and, it may be added, through all the vicissitudes of 
party which marked the period. No novel construction, however inge- 
niously devised, or however respectable and patriotic its patrons, can 
withstand the weight of such authority, or the unbroken current of so 
prolonged and universal a practice." 

Having thus endeavored to establish the constitutionality of the 
power of congress to protect and encourage manufactures, he discusses 
in the second letter, the expediency of exercising the power for this pur- 
pose. The following are extracts from this letter: 

" 1. The theory of 'Let us alone' supposes that all nations concur in 
a perfect freedom of commercial intercourse. Were this the case, they 
would, in a commercial view, be but one nation, as much as the several 
districts composing a particular nation ; and the theory would be as 
applicable to the former as to the latter. But this golden age of free 
trade has not yet arrived : nor is there a single nation that has set the 
example. No nation can, indeed, safely do so, until a reciprocity, at 
least, be insured to it. Take, for a proof, the familiar case of the navi- 
gation employed in foreign commerce. If a nation, adhering to the rule 
of never interposing a countervailing protection of its vessels, admits 
foreign vessels into its ports free of duty, whilst its own vessels are sub- 
ject to a duty in foreign ports, the ruinous effect is so obvious, that the 
warmest advocate for the theory in question must shrink from a univer- 
sal application of it. 

" A nation leaving its foreign trade, in all cases, to regulate itself, 
might soon find it regulated, by other nations, into a subserviency to a 
foreign interest. In the interval between the peace of 1783 and the 
establishment of the present constitution of the United States, the want 
of a general authority to regulate trade is known to have had this con- 
sequence. * * # 

" 2. The theory supposes, moreover, a perpetual peace ; a supposition, 
it is to be feared, not less chimerical than a universal freedom of com- 
merce. * * * In order to determine a question of economy, 
between depending on foreign supplies, and encouraging domestic substi- 
tutes, it is necessary to compare the probable periods of war with the 
probable periods of peace; and the cost of the domestic encouragement 
in times of peace, with the cost added to foreign articles in times of war. 
* * * * It cannot be said that the manufactories which could 
not support themselves against foreign competition in periods of peace, 
would spring up of themselves at the recui'rence of war prices. It 
must be obvious to every one, that, apart from the difficulty of great and 
sudden changes in employment, no prudent capitalists would engage in 
expensive establishments of any sort, at the commencement of a war of 
uncertain duration with a certainty of having them crushed by the 
return of peace. * * * 

" 3. It is an opinion in which all must agree, that no nation ought to be 
unnecessarily dependent on others fur the munitions of public defense 



.iPPENDIX. 981 

or for the materials essential to a naval force, where the nation has a 
maritime frontier or a foreign couiraerce to protect. To this class of 
exceptions to the theory, may be added the instruments of agriculture, 
and of the mechanic arts which supply the other primary wants of the 
comir.unity. # * * 

" 4. Tnere are cases where a uation may be so far advanced in the 
prerequisites for a particular branch of manufactures, that this, if once 
brought into existence, would support itself; and yet, unless aided in its 
nascent and infant state, by public encouragement and a confidence in 
public protection, might remain, if not altogether, for a long time unat- 
tempted, or attempted without success. Is not our cotton manufacture 
a fair example ? However favored by an advantageous command of the 
raw material, and a machinery which dispenses in so extraordinary a 
proportion with manual labor, it is quite probable, that without the 
impulse given by a war, cutting off foreign supplies, and the patronage 
of an early tariff, it might not even yet have established itself; and 
pretty certain, that it would be far short of the prosperous condition 
which enables it to face, in foreign markets, the fabrics of a nation that 
defies all other competitors. The number must be small, that would now 
pronounce this manufacturing boon not to have been cheaply purchased 
by the tariff which nursed it into its present maturity. 

"5. Should it happen, as has been suspected, to be an object, though 
not of a foreign government itself, of its great manufacturing capitalists, 
to strangle in the cradle the infant manufactures of an extensive cus- 
tomer, or an anticipated rival, it would surely, in such a cause, be incum- 
bent on the suffering party, so far to make an exception of the ' Let 
alone' policy, as to parry the evil by apposite regulations of its foreign 
commerce." 

Note 'Ei.—Page 493. 

The exposition, by Mr. Madison, of his Virginia resolutions, does not 
authorize the construction given to them by Mr. Hayne and others. 
And in letters written at the time of, or soon after the debate in which 
his authority was claimed in support of nullification, he unequivocally 
disclaimed the doctrine. [See Niles' Register of May 30, and Oct. 16, 
1830.] 

Note ^.—Page 499. 

In the convention of the framers of the constitution, there was much 
opposition to the change of the government from the confederation of 
independent and sovereign states, to a national government, or govern- 
ment of the people; and the same opposition was made in some of the 
state conventions to which it was submitted for adoption. The concur- 
rence of its opponents and advocates in considering it a government of 
the people of the states, and not a mere league or union of states, would 
seem to afford ample confirmation of the exposition of Mr. Livingston 
and Mr. Webster. In the convention of Virginia, Patrick Henry, who 
was opposed to this feature of the constitution, said : 

" The members of the federal convention were, I am sure, impressed 
with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead 
of a confc;dcratioii: — that this is a consolidated aovernraent is demon- 



982 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

strably clear; and the danger, to my mind, is very striking. I have 
the highest veneration for those gentlemen ; but, sir, give me leave to 
demand, what right they had to '&2i^ ^ '■ we the people V My political 
curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leadf 
me to ask, who authorized them to speak the language of ' we the peo. 
pie ' instead of ' we the states .?' States are the characteristic and soul 
of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it 
must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all 
the states." 

To this, it was replied, first by Mr. Edmund Pendleton, the president 
of the convention, thus : 

" But an objection is made to the form : the expression, we the people, 
is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman, who made this 
objection, who but the people can delegate power ? who but the people 
have a right to form a government ? The expression is a common one 
and a favorite one with me ; — the representatives of the people, by their 
authority, is a mode wholly unessential. If the objection be, that the 
union ought to be not of the people, but of the state governments, then 
I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have 
the state governments to do with it ? Were they to determine, the 
people could not, in that case, be the judge upon what terms it was 
adopted." 

On the same head, Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland, thus spoke : 

" He (Mr. Henry) had adverted to the state of the government, and 
asked what authority they had to use the expression, '■ we the people , 
and not we the states ? This expression was introduced into that paper 
with great propriety ; this system is submitted to the people for their 
consideration, because on them it is to operate, if adopted. It is not 
binding on the people, until it becomes their act. It is now submitted 
to the people of Virginia. If we do not adopt it, it will be always null 
and void as to us. Suppose it was found proper for an adoption, in 
becoming the government of the people of Virginia, by what style should 
it be done ? Ought we not to make use of the name of the people ? 
No other style would be proper." 

Mr. Madison, another member of the convention, who was also one 
of the delegates that framed the constitution, thus expressed himself, as 
to the mixed natui'C of the federal government : 

" The principal question is, whether it be a federal or consolidated 
government. In order to judge properly of the question before us, we 
must consider it minutely in its principal parts. I conceive myself that 
it is of a mixed nature — it is in a manner unprecedented ; we can not 
find one express example in the experience of the world ; it stands by 
itself. In some respects it is a government of a federal nature: in 
others it is of a consolidated nature. Even if we attend to the manner 
in which the constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of 
the people of xVmerica, I can saj', notwithstanding what the honorable 
gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consoli- 
dated — nor is it entirely federal. Who are parties to it ? The people 
— but not the people as composing thirteen sovereignties ; were it, as 
the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a 
uiujority of the people would be sufficieul for its establishment; and as 



APPENDIX. 983 

a majority have adopted it already, the remaining states would be bound 
by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. 
Was it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on 
the people of this state without their having had the privilege of deliberat- 
ing on it ; but, sir, no state is bound by it, as it is, without its own 
consent. Should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government 
established by the thirteen states of America, not through the interven- 
tion of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular 
respect, the distinction between the existing and the proposed govern- 
ment is very material. The existing system has been derived from the 
dependent derivative authority of the legislature of the states ; whereas 
this is derived from the superior power of the people. If we look at 
the manner in which alterations are to be made in it, the same idea is 
in some degree attended to. By the new system, a majority of the 
states can not introduce amendments ; nor are all the states required 
for that purpose ; three-fourths of them must concur in alterations ; in 
this, there is a departure from the federal idea : the members to the 
national house of representatives are to be chosen by the people at large, 
in proportion to the numbers in the respective districts. When we come 
to the senate, its members are elected by the states in their equal and 
political capacity ; but had the government been completely consolidated, 
the senate would have been chosen by the people in their individual 
capacity, in the same manner as the members of the other house. Thus 
it is of a complicated nature, and this complication, I trust, will be 
found to exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well as of a 
mere confederacy." 

Mr. Nicholas, on the same side, remarked : 

"In my opinion, the expression 'we the people,' is highly proper — it 
is submitted to the people, because on them it is to operate. Till 
adopted, it is a dead letter and not binding upon any one ; when adopted 
it becomes binding upon the people who adopt it. It is proper on 
another account. We are under great obligations to the federal con- 
vention for recurring to the people, the source of all power. The gen- 
tleman's argument militates against himself; he says that persons in 
power never relinquish power willingly. If, then, the state legislatures 
would not relinquish part of the powers they now possess, to enable a 
general government to support the union, reference to the people is 
necessary." 

Note G^.—Page 568. 

In regard to the force of judicial decisions in controlling the action 
of other branches of the government, president Jackson says : 

" Each public officer who takes an oath to support the constitution, 
swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is 
understood by others. It is as much the duty of the house of represen- 
tatives, of the senate, and of the president, to decide upon the constitu- 
tionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for 
passage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought 
before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no 
more authority over congress than the opinion of congress has over the 
judges, and on that point the president is independent of both. The 



984 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

authority of the supreme court must not, therefore, be permitted to con- 
trol the congress or the executive, when acting in their legislative 
capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning 
may deserve." 

The frilowlng are the vietvs o{ Mr Mar.isoD, coir.municate i in j, letter 
to Charles J. Ingersoll, June 25, 1831 : 

" The case in question has its true analogy in the obligation arising 
from judicial expositions of the law on succeeding judges; the consti- 
tution being a law of the legislator, as the law is a rule of decision to 
the judge. 

" And why are judicial precedents, when formed on due discussion 
and consideration, and deliberately sanctioned by reviews and repeti- 
tions, regarded as of binding injluence, or rather of authoritative force, 
in settling the meaning of a law ? It must be answered, 1st, because it 
is a reasonable and established axiom, that the good of society requires 
that the rules of conduct of its members should be certain and known, 
which would not be the case if any judge, disregarding the decisions of 
his predecessors, should vai'y the rule of law according to his individual 
interpretation of it. Misera est servitus rebi jus est aut vagum aret 
incognitum. 2d, because an exposition of the law publicly made and 
repeatedly confirmed by the constituted authority, carries with it, by fair 
inference, the sanction of those who, having made the law through the 
legislative organ, appear under such circumstances, to have determined 
its meaning through their judiciary organ. 

" Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of the constitution 
should be fixed and known, than that the meaning of a law should be 
so ? Can indeed a law be fixed in its meaning and its operation, unless 
the constitution be so ? On the contrary, if a particular legislature, 
differing in the construction of the constitution from a series of preced- 
ing constructions, proceeding to act on that difference, they not only 
introduce uncertainty and instability in the constitution, but in the laws 
themselves ; inasmuch as all laws, preceding the new construction, and 
inconsistent with it, are not annulled for the future, but virtually pro- 
nounced nullities from the beginning. 

'' But it is said that the legislator having sworn to support the consti- 
tution, must support it in his own construction of it, however diflerent 
from that put on it by his predecessors, or whatever be the consequence 
of the construction. And is not the judge under the same oath to sup- 
port the law ? yet has it ever been supposed that he was required, or 
at liberty to disregard all precedents, however solemnly repeated and 
regularly observed ; and, by giving effect to his own abstract and indivi- 
dual opinions, to disturb the established course of practice in the busi- 
ness of the community ? Has the wisest and most conscientious judge 
ever scrupled to acquiesce in decisions in which he has been overruled 
by the matured opinions of the majority of his colleagues ; and subse- 
quently to conform himself thereto, as to authoritative expositions of 
the law ? And is it not reasonable that the same view of the official 
oath should be taken by a legislator, acting under the constitution, which 
is his guide, as is taken bj a judge, acting under the law, which is his ? 

" There is in fact and in common understanding, a necessity of regard- 
ing a course of practice, as above characterised, in the light of a legal 



APPENDIX. 985 

rule of interpreting a law ; and there is a like necessity of considering 
it a constitutional rule of interpreting a constitution. 

" That there may be extraordinary and peculiar circumstances con- 
trolling the rule in both cases, may be admitted ; but, ivith such excep- 
tions, the J ule Tvill f jrce itseh" on the practical judgmei.t of the -nost 
ardent theorist. He will find it impossible to adhere to, and act oxficial- 
ly upon, his solitary opinions as to the meaning of the law or constitu- 
tion, in opposition to a construction, reduced to practice, during a rea- 
sonable period of time ; more especially where no prospect existed of a 
change of construction by the public as its agents. And if a reasonable 
period of time, marked with the usual sanctions, would not bar the indi- 
vidual prerogative, there could be no limitation to its exercise, although 
the danger of error must increase with the increasing oblivion of ex- 
planatory circumstances, and with the continual changes in the import 
of words and phrases. 

" Let it then be left to the decision of every intelligent and candid 
judge, which, on the whole, is most to be relied on for the true and safe 
construction of a constitution, that which has the uniform sanction of 
successive legislative bodies through a period of years, and under the 
varied ascendency of parties ; or that which depends upon the opinions 
of every new legislature, heated as it may be by the spirit of party, 
eager in the pursuit of some favorite object, or led astray by the elo- 
quence and address of popular statesmen, themselves, perhaps, under the 
influence of the same misleading causes. 

" It was in conformity with the view here taken on the respect due to 
deliberate and reiterated precedents, that the bank of the United States, 
though on the original question held to be unconstitutional, received the 
executive signature in the year 1817. The act of originally establishing 
a bank, had undergone ample discussions in its passage through the 
several branches of government. It had been carried into execution 
throughout a period of twenty years with annual legislative recogni- 
tions ; in one instance, indeed, with a positive ramification of it into a 
new state ; and with the entire acquiescence of all the local authorities 
as well as of the nation at large ; to all of which may be added, a de- 
creasing prospect of any change in the public opinion adverse to the 
constitutionality of such an institution. A veto from the executive 
under these circumstances^ with an admission of the expediency and 
almost necessity of the measure, would have been a defiance of all the 
obligations derived from a course of precedents amounting to the 
requisite evidence of the national judgment and intention, 

" It has been contended that the authority of precedents was in that 
case invalidated by the consideration that they proved only a respect 
for the stipulated duration of the bank, with a toleration of it until the 
law should expire, and by the casting vote given in the senate by the 
vice-president in the year 1811, against a bill for establishing a national 
bank, the vote being expressly given on the ground of unconstitu- 
tionality. But if the law itself was unconstitutional, the stipulation 
was void, and could not be constitutionally fulfilled or tolerated. And 
as to the negative of the senate b}'' the casting vote of the presiding 
officer, it is a fact well understood at the time, that it resulted not from 
an equality of opinions in that assembly on the power of congress to 



986 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

establisli a bank, but from a junction of those who admitted the power, 
but disapproved the plan, with those who denied the power. On a sim- 
ple question of constitutionality, there was a decided majority in favor 
of it." 

Note H.— Page 61 \. 

The case referred to is that of Samuel Gwinn, a clerk in the post 
office at Washington, who had been appointed by president Jackson, in 
1831, during the recess of the senate, to the office of register in a land 
office in Mississippi. On the meeting of congress in December, Mr. 
Gwinn was nominated to the senate for the office to which he had been 
appointed. In consequence of a standing rule of the senate, not to 
appoint a person of one state to an office in another, the nomination was 
negatived; ayes, 13; noes, 25. At the same session, June 12, 1832, 
the name of Gwinn was again communicated to the senate ; and the 
message was ordered to lie on the table. On the 10th of July, it was 
taken up, and the nomination was again laid on the table, 27 to 17. 

On the 16th of July, during tho last night's sitting, when many 
senators had left the city, a small majority only remaining, another 
attempt was made to get the nomination acted on, but it was resolved, 
that the president be mformed that the senate would take no proceed- 
ings on the nomination, which was again ordered to lie on the table. 
Mr. Ellis, senator from Mississippi, called up the nomination, saying 
the president had declared that he would make no other nomination. 
But the senate resolved, that the president be informed, that no proceed- 
ings would be taken on the nomination, which was again laid on the 
table. This attempt of the president to induce the senate to recede from 
their determination was regarded as arbitrai'y. 

It became a question, whether the vacancy occurring by the presi- 
dent's refusal to nominate another person, could be constitutionally 
filled by a new appointment by the president. The constitution provides 
that the commissions of persons appointed to fill vacancies happening 
during the recess of the senate, shall not hold beyond the nest session. 
But if the president could make a new appointment after the adjourn- 
ment, there was nothing to prevent his keeping -a person in office at 
pleasure, without the consent of the senate. The question was referred 
to the attorney-general, Mr. Taney, who gave it as his opinion, that the 
president had power to reappoint after the adjournment of the senate. 

Note I. — Fage 622. 

The " right of instruction," as it is called, has afforded to politicians 
a fruitful topic of discussiou. It is a question upon which opposite 
opinions have been entertained by eminent statesmen. The doctrine is 
this : The representative is bound in all cases to act in accordance with 
the wishes of his constituents, whatever may be his own ideas of the 
effects of a particular measure upon which he may be called to act ; or 
to resign his office, in order to allow them to substitute one who will 
conform to their views. 

It is urged in favor of this doctrine, that it is in conformity with th(! 



APPENDIX 937 

republican principle, wbicli requires tlie representative to ie ,vhat a 
majority of the people would do if they were to act in person; and 
hence, to do otherwise is virtually to substitute the will of one, or of a 
minority, for that of the majority. This, certainly, is a plausible argu- 
ment, and one which, upon a bare statement of it, would almost seem to 
be incontrovertible; as no true republican would contend for a govern- 
ment by a minority. 

The following arguments against the doctrine in question, are entitled 
to consideration : 

If the right of instruction exists at all, it must be unlimited ; and 
must apply not only to representatives in congress, but to representa- 
tives in state legislatures, who might be found to disagree with their 
constituents in the several districts they represent. And it must extend 
also to governors, judges, and other officers. The consequences of car- 
rying out the principle to its full extent, would unsettle the government, 
multiply our elections indefinitely, and keep the public mind in a state 
of perpetual agitation. But as such an extension of the principle would 
not, it is presumed, find many advocates, we will suppose it to be con- 
fined to representative officers, and particularly to senators and repre- 
sentatives in congress, whose cases have, for the most part, given rise to 
the discussion. 

A representative may, and in most cases probably does, possess means 
of information which are not accessible to the great body of his consti- 
tuents, in relation to the particular measure upon which he differs with 
them. It may appear to him not only decidedly detrimental to the 
general welfare, but uncotistitutional. Having sworn to support the 
constitution, he could not conscientiously vote for the measure. And 
if he believes it to be unconstitutional, ought he to give place to another 
who will aid in violating the constitution ? Would he be inexcusable 
for thus consenting to the infraction of that instrument of which he has, 
for a specific period of time, been made one of its constitutional guard- 
ians ? 

So in regard to the expediency of a measure. He may, from careful 
and laborious investigation, and from infallible data, have come to a 
firm conviction that the adoption of a particular measure would be 
highly detrimental to the puplic interest ; ought he surrender his post to 
one who he has the strongest reason to believe would aid in inflicting 
the injury upon the community ? 

Again : how is the representative to know the will of his constituents ? 
They may never have expressed their opinions on the particular mea- 
sure upon which the legislative instruction is given ; and therefore the 
legislature itself has not the means of knowing what would be the ex- 
pression of the people upon this question if submitted to them separate 
and distinct from all others. In electing the state legislatures, other 
questions have their influence in determining the votes of the mass of 
the electors ; and it may be that the legislature, in their instructions, 
actually misrepresent the wishes of the majority of their constituents. 
There have been instances in which senators have been instructed upon 
questions which did not enter at all into the election of representatives 
in the state legislature. The legislature of a state, having been chosen 
l.riuGipally for purposes of state legislation, can not be presumed to 



ySO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

express the will of the people on a question foreign to such purposes; 
but the instructions, if the right exists at all, must come in a more dil-ect 
manner, which shall leave no doubt as to the wishes of the majority. 
The constitution has made no provision for displacing a representative 
fov a n.ere misrf pres;ntatiou ci a 'najo' ity f f hi-j conititu.-nts. Urder 
the cid confederation, the delegates, though chosen for a year only, 
might at any time be recalled by the state legislatures, and their places 
filled by new appointments ; but the constitution, while it has doubled 
the term of office of a representative, and has given to senators a term 
of six years, has made no provision for their recall or displacement for 
any political opinion whatever. 

Nor is the silence of the constitution on this subject the result of 
inadvertence. The framers, on the contrary, seem to have contemplated 
the contingency which the advocates of the right of instruction regard 
as an evil, and which they would adopt extra constitutional means to 
prevent. This is inferred from the reasons which governed the conven- 
tion in fixing the official terms of the different officers of the government. 
While, on the one hand, they intended to make the term so short as 
to insure a due degree of responsibility on the part of the representa- 
tive; they deemed it important, on the other, to make it so long as 
effectually to guard against the evils of changeable legislation. This 
was deemed so essential, that propositions were made for a senate for 
life, or during good behavior, and for terms of from three to nine years 
But as a mean between the longest and the shortest terms proposed, the 
term of six years was adopted. And what were the arguments of the 
framers in favor of so long a term for one of the branches of the legis- 
lature ? 

In reference to the evils of an unstable policy, which is the natural 
result of a too frequent charge of those intrusted with the powers of 
legislation ; and in view of those sudden popular excitements which 
demagogues well know how to produce; Mr. Madison, in defending a 
durable senate, says, in the 63d number of the Federalist : " As the 
cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, 
and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the 
views of its rulers ; so there are particular moments in public affairs, 
when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit 
advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, 
may call for measures which they themselves will afterward be the most 
ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary 
will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of 
citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow 
meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and 
truth, can regain their authority over the public mind ! What bitter 
anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped, if their 
government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny 
of their own passions ! Popular liberty might then have escaped the 
indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one 
day, and statues on the next." 

In the above extract are noticed more particularly the liability to 
fluctuating legislation, iu consequence of sudden poji:;! ir convulsions, 
and the necessity of a senate like that provided by t!.o constitution to 



APPENDIX. 989 

prevent the evil. In the preceding number, speaking more particularly 
of the " mutability of the public councils, arising from a rapid succes- 
sion of new members," he says : " From this change of men must pro- 
ceed a change of opinions ; and from a change of opinions, a change of 
measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent 
with every rule of prudence. * * * It will be of little avail to 

the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice if 

they are repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo 
such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, 
can guess what it will be to-morrow. * * * "What prudent mer- 
chant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce, when he 
knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can 
be executed ? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for 
the encouragement of any particular cultivation or establishment, when 
he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will 
not render him a victim to an inconstant government ?" 

In answering the objection, that the appointment of senators by the 
state legislatures, instead of a direct election by the people, and for so 
long a term as six years, would render that body too independent of the 
people, and induce its members to abuse their power, Mr. Madison 
says : " Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as 
by the abuses of power;" and then proceeds to give examples proving 
the safety of a permanent senate where it is counteracted by a popular 
branch elected for a short 4;erm. The practical effect of the doctrine in 
question would be to destroy the stability of the senate ; to subject the 
country to the evils of a fluctuating policy, and thus defeat the very 
object of the constitution itself. 

But it is affirmed that the contrary doctrine, instead of being anti- 
republican, because opposed to the will of the people, is really in ac- 
cordance with the popular will, as expressed in the only way in which 
it can be constitutionally done, through the constitution itself. The 
constitution, presuming a senatorial term of six years to be preferable, 
on the whole, to a shorter one, fixed it at that period, without any pro- 
vision against the contingency of a senator's opinions coming into con- 
flict with those of the people of the state he is chosen to represent ; and 
the act of the people in adopting the constitution with this provision, is 
to be taken as the true expression of their will, so long as that instru- 
ment shall remain unaltered. In adopting this provision, they have 
deliberately chosen to run the hazard of a temporary misrepresentation, 
in order to guard against the far greater evil of unstable legislation. To 
the constitution, therefore, we are to look for the legitimate expression 
of the will of the people. Even if their wishes could be infallibly as- 
certained in cases as they arise, the instructions, it is held, would not 
bind, the representative to yield either his place or his opinions. 

Note J.— Page 690. 

Allusion was here made to a mob in the city of New York in Febru- 
ary, 1837, instigated by a meeting held in pursuance of a notice pub- 
lished in some of the papers, and placarded through the city. It was 
at a time of high prices of provisions, fuel, rent, &c. The notice 



990 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

declared, that " high prices must come down ! The voice of the people 
shall be heard and will prevail !" The object of the meeting, which 
was announced to be held in the Park, " rain or shine," was " to inquire 
into the cause of the present unexampled distress, and to devise a suit- 
able remedy." 

About 5,000 persons assembled at the time and place appointed, and 
were addressed by several persons in an inflammatory stj'le ; after which 
a large body of the meeting proceeded to some flour stores, and destroyed 
wheat and flour, with other property, to the amount of about $10,000. 

Note K.—Page 702. 

It is not the strangest fact in our political history, that the constitutional 
opinions of the leading statesmen of South Carolina, underwent, in the 
course of a few years, an entire change from the widest latitudinarianism 
to the most rigid strict construction. Nor is it the only instance of a 
total revolution of opinion in the history of our public men. It may, 
notwithstanding, be gratifying to the reader to notice the contrast be- 
tween the former views of the uullifiers of that state, and their state 
rights doctrines at a subsequent period. 

From a reply to a certain series of "radical " essays published in the 
state of Georgia, in 1821, is the following extract, ascribed to the pen 
of Mr. M'Dufiie, of South Carolina : 

" What security, then, did the convention, or, in other words, the 
people of the United States, provide to restrain their functionaries from 
usurping powers not delegated, and from abusing those with which they 
are really invested ? * * * The constitution will tell you that it is the 
real security they have provided. It is the responsibility of the officers 
of the general government, not to the state authorities, but to them- 
selves, the people. This, and this only, is the great conservative prin- 
ciple, which lies at the foundation of all our political institutions, and 
sustains the great and glorious fabric of our liberty. This great truth 
ought to be kept in constant and lively remembrance by every American. 

" The states, as political bodies, have no original, inherent rights. 
That they have such rights is a false, dangerous, and anti-republican 
assumption, which lurks at the bottom of all the reasonings in favor of 
state rights. 

" x\s far as I can collect any distinct propositions from the medly of 
unconnected quotations you have made on these very important sub- 
jects, I understand you to affirm, that in expounding the federal consti- 
tution, we should be " tied doivn to the strict letter '''' of that instrument; 
and that the general government ' was not made the exclusive or final 
judge of the extent of the powers to be delegated to itself; but that, as 
in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, 
each party had a right to judge for itself; — these may be considered 
the concentrated essence of all the wild and destructive principles that 
have ever been advanced in relation to the subjects under consideration ! 

" I should suppose, therefore, that no professional man could hesitate 
in saying, that a forcible opposition to the judgment of the federal 
court, founded upon an act of congress, by whatever state authority 
that opposition might be authorized, would be the very case which the 



APPENDIX. 991 

convention had in view, -when they made provision for calling forth the 
militia to execute the laws of the union." 

Mr. M'Duffie, in I:is essays, claims the authority of Mr. Calhoun, 
saying : " He (Mr. v^. was from the first a decided advocate of the 
navy, the bank, internal improvements, internal taxes when necessary, 
and liberal principles in construing the constitution for great, useful, 
and safe national purposes." 

In a speech on the direct tax, in 1816, Mr. Calhoun said : " Let us 
make great permanent roads, not like the Romans, with the view of 
subjecting and ruling provinces, but for the more honorable purposes of 
defense ; and connecting more closely the interests of various sections 
of this great country. Let any one look at the vast cost of transporta- 
tion during the war, much of which is chargeable to the want of good 
roads and canals, and he will not deny the vast importance of a due 
attention to this object. 

" Mr. C. proceeded to another topic — the encouragement proper to be 
aflfordcd to the industry of the country. In regard to the question how 
far manufactures ought to be fostered, Mr. C. said it was the duty of 
this country, as a means of defense, to encourage the domestic industry 
of the country, more especially that part of it which provides the neces- 
sary materials for clothing and defense. Let us look at the nature of 
the war most likely to occur. England is in possession of the ocean ; 
no man, however sanguine, can believe that we can deprive her soon of 
her predominance there. That control deprives us of the means of 
maintaining our army and navy cheaply clad. The question relating to 
manufactures must not depend upon the abstract principle that industry, 
left to pursue its own course, will find in its own interest all the en- 
couragement that is necessary. I lay the claims of the manufacturers 
entirely out of view, said Mr. C. ; but on general principles, without 
regard to their interest, a certain encouragement should be extended, at 
least to our woolen and cotton manufacturers." 

Note L. — Page 707. 

Mr. Adams having stated, in the course of a debate in congress, that 
the Florida treaty had been approved by Gen. Jackson, and the state- 
ment having been questioned by the Globe, he repeated the declaration, 
and exculpated himself His remarks are reported thus : 

" Mr. Adams repeated, in substance, that he was himself opposed to 
the relinquishment of Texas, and that no other man in the cabinet of 
Mr. Monroe sustained him. He negotiated the treaty with Don Onis, 
under the immediate direction of the president, (Mr. Monroe,) and never 
exchanged any communications with that minister which Mr. Mcnroe 
did not see. He (Mr. A.) was the last man in the administration who 
assented to the treaty. The treaty was concluded on the 22d of July, 
1819. At that time Gen. Jackson was in the city, attending the pro- 
ceedings of congress on the Seminole question. After the treaty had 
been agreed to, and before it was signed, Mr. Monroe requested him 
(Mr. A.) to submit it to Gen. Jackson, and obtain his opinion upon it. 
It was accordingly submitted to him, not as a military commander, but 
as a distinguished citizen. He called upon Gen. Jackson at the hotel 



992 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

then kept by Strother, now Fuller's, and handed him the treaty, direct- 
ing his attention particularly to the boundary. General Jackson kept 
it a day or two, and then returned it with his approbation." 

Note M. — Page 747. 

The number of defaulters was said to be not less than forty, whose 
defalcations amounted to about two millions of dollars. That of Samuel 
Swartwout, collector of the port of New York, alone, was about one 
niilliou and a quarter. 

Note l^.—Page 799. 

The following, having been inadvertently omitted in its regular place 
in the body of the work, is here inserted as a supplement to Chapter 
LXIV: 

At the time of the passage of the act of June 25, 1842, for the appor- 
tionment of representatives according to the census of 1 840, representa- 
tives were not in all the states chosen in single districts. The second 
section of the act above mentioned, required every state entitled to more 
than one representative, " to elect representatives by districts composed 
of contiguous territory, equal in number to the number of its representa- 
tives, no one district to elect more than one representative." In many 
of the states, there were some districts in each of which two or more 
were elected ; and in some others, they were elected by general ticket. 
Such were the states of New Hampshire, Georgia, Mississippi, and 
Missouri. These states, electing twenty representatives, refused to 
comply with this provision of the above mentioned law; and when, on 
the assembling of the next congress, (December, 1843,) these representa- 
tives appeared to take their seats, their right to them was disputed on 
the ground that their election was illegal. Before proceeding to the 
election of a speaker, Mr. Barnard, of New York, arose to read a paper; 
but the reading was objected to; and leave to read the same was re- 
fused, 124 to 69. The paper was a trotest, signed by fifty- three mem- 
bers of the house, declaring the election of the persons appearing as 
representatives from these states to have been unconstitutional and 
illegal, and protesting against their participating in the election of 
speaker. 

The speaker was elected viva voce. John W. Jones, of Virginia, was 
chosen, by 128 votes against 59 for John White, of Kentucky, and 1 for 
William Wilkins. 

The subject of the election of the representatives from the states non- 
complying with the act of 1842, was referred to the committee on elec- 
tions ; and on the 22d of January,' 1844, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, in 
behalf of the committee, made a report, concluding with two resolutions, 
declaring the act of congress of 1842, " not a laio made in pursuance of 
the constitution of the United States," and that all the members from 
the above named states were constitutionally and lawfully elected. 

The authority for adopting that section of the apportionment law 
which nullified the state laws under which the elections had been held, 
the committee said, was supposed by its advocates to be derived from 
the 4th section of iLe 1st article of the constitution, which says : " The 



APPENDIX 993 

times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators ana representar 
tives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but 
the congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, 
except as to the places of choosing senators." The committee argued, 
that the first part of this clause co'mmanded the state legislatures to 
act ; the other 7;>e^??^^^?e<i congress to act. An imperative duty rested 
upon the former ; while to the latter only a privilege was granted. From 
this the committee appear to have drawn the inference, that the power 
here granted to congress was intended only as a conservative power, to 
be exercised in case a state legislature should fail or refuse to act, or 
should act in such a manner as to subvert the rights of the people and 
the principles of the constitution. 

To support this construction, the report referred to the debates of the 
convention to form the constitution. When Gen. Pinckney proposed that 
representatives " should be elected in such manner as the legislature of 
each state should direct," he urged " that this liberty would give more 
satisfaction, as the legislature could then accommodate the inode to the 
convenience and opinions of the peopled And the latter part of the 
clause was agreed to with an explanation, that " this was meant to give 
to the national legislature a power, not only to alter the provisions of 
the states, but to make regulations in case the states should fail w re- 
fuse altogether.'''' And Gen. Hamilton, in the Federalist, defended this 
provision upon the same principle : " Its propriety rests upon the evi- 
dence of this plain proposition, that every government ought to contain 
within itself the means of its own preservation." 

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, from the minority of the committee, made 
a counter report. This report noticed a doctrine which had been lately 
assumed, that the clause under consideration established the general 
ticket system as the mode by which members are to be elected. This 
strange doctrine was deduced from the mode of electing senators and 
representatives. And the argument was, that the members of the state 
legislatures could not be divided into two classes, and the election of a 
senator be assigned to each. And, farther, as the people of the states 
were to elect their representatives, they could not be divided into dis- 
tricts, and those residing in a district be restricted to vote for a single 
representative ; but all had the right to vote for all the representatives 
of a state. But the minority said, the position that the house of repre- 
sentatives must be chosen by all the people of the several states, proved 
too much for the purposes of its advocates. It went even beyond the 
general ticket, and required not only that all the people of a state must 
vote for as many persons as it had representatives, hut each representa- 
tive must be chosen by the whole people. The absurdity of the argument 
did not stop here. All the people of every state would be bound to 
" choose the house of representatives ;" that is, the entire aggregate of 
representatives from all the states ! 

But the minority contended that the provisions of the constitution 
which require, that " the house of representatives shall be composed of 
members elected every second year by the people of the several states ;" 
and that " the senate of the United States shall be composed of two 
senators from each state;" did not admit of the above construction. 
The plain object of them was to establish the body of electors of the two 

63 



994 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

houses, and not to prescribe the manner of choosing their members 
The phraseology must be received as it was universally understood 
when the constitution was formed. The people of the states then elected, 
as now, the most numerous branch of their legislatures ; and it was 
therefore obvious, that, when the constitution, after saying, as above, 
that the representatives shall be elected " by the people of the several 
states," immediately adds, " and the electors in each state shall have 
the qualifications requisite for electing the most numerous branch of the 
state legislature," the object was, as already stated, to determine who 
should constitute the body of electors ; in other words, what should be 
the qualifications of the electors of representatives. 

The minority difi'ered also in their construction of the clause of the 
4th section, which says : " The times, places, and manner of holding 
elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each 
state by the legislature thereof; but the congress may, at any time, by 
law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing 
senators." If this does not confer the power to determine whether 
members of the house shall be elected by districts or by general ticket, 
then the state legislatures have no jurisdiction over that part of the 
matter; and they have, from the origin of the government, usurped 
power in establishing the one mode or the other, at their pleasure. The 
report maintained that this power was vested both in the state legisla- 
tures and in congress. Mr. Madison, in the convention, when this clause 
was under consideration, said : " This view of the question seems to 
decide that the legislatures of the states ought not to have the uncon- 
trolled right of regulating the times, places, and manner of holding 
elections. These are words of great latitude. It is impossible to fore- 
see all the abuse that may be made of the discretionary power. 
Whether the elections should be by ballot, or viva voce ; whether the 
electors should assemble at this place or at that place ; should be 
divided into districts or all meet at one place ; should all vote for all 
the representatives^ or all in a district vote for a member allotted to that 
district • — these and many other points would depend upon the legisla- 
tures, and might materially afi'ect the appointments." " It seemed to 

be as improper in principle, to give to the state legislatures this 

great authority over the elections of the people in the general legislature, 
as it would be to give to the latter a like power over the election of 
their representatives in the state legislatures." 

Mr. Hamilton, in the Federalist, says : " They have submitted the 
regulations of elections of the federal government, in the first instance, 
to the local administrations ; which, in ordinary cases, and where no 
improper views prevail, may be both more convenient and more satis- 
factory. But they have reserved to the national authority a right to 
interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that in- 
terposition necessary to its safety. * * * ]3ut there remains a posi- 
tive advantage which will accrue to this disposition ; I allude to 

the circumstance of uniformity in the time of elections for the federal 
house of representatives." And in the New York convention which 
adopted the constitution, he said : " The natural and proper mode of 
holding elections will be to divide the states into districts in proportion 
to the number to be elected." 



ArpENDix. 995 

The propriety of the single district system was argued from the fact, 
that, by general ticket, six of the largest states could, by a bare majori- 
ty of their votes, forming about one-fourth of the freemen of the United 
States, elect 119 members, and thus control the popular branch of the 
government. 

The minority continue their argument at length, and conclude with 
a resolution, that the sitting members of the four states, " not having 
been elected in pursuance of the constitution and law, their seats, 
severally, are declared vacant." 

Note to Page 152. 

After the death of Alexander Hamilton, there was found among his 
papers a manuscript copy of Washington's Farewell Address ; informa- 
tion of which was communicated by Richard Peters to John Jay, in a 
letter of the 14th of February, 1811. The letter stated also that a cer- 
tain geutleman had also a copy of it, in the same hand writing. From 
these facts it was presumed, that Gen. Hamilton was the real^ and Gen. 
Washington only the reputed author of this address which had contri- 
buted so much to exalt his character and endear his name to the Ameri- 
can people. 

The answer of Judge Jay to this letter disclosed an interesting cir- 
cumstance connected with the preparation of the address, which, but for 
Mr. Jay, would probably never have been made public: and that 
" monument of human excellence," as he appropriately terms it, might 
have carried with it doubts as to its real authorship through all future 
time. The whole letter of Mr. Jay would be read with interest. He 
bears testimony, from personal knowledge, not only to the moral worth, 
but to the " political talents and wisdom " of Washington, and to his 
ample ability to write such an address. He then gives what might be 
reasonably supposed to be evidence of its having been written by him ; 
and concludes his letter as follows : 

" They who knew president Washington and his various endowments, 
qualifications, and virtues, know that, (aggregately considered,) they 
formed a tout ensemble which has rarely been equaled, and perhaps 
never excelled. 

" Thus much for presumptive evidence , I will now turn your atten- 
tion to some that is direct. 

" The history, (if it may be so called,) of the address is not unknown 
to me ; but as I came to the knowledge of it under implied confidence, 
I doubted when I first received your letter, whether I ought to disclose 
it. On more mature reflection I became convinced that, if president 
Washington were now alive, and informed of the facts in question, he 
would not only authorize, but also desire me to reduce it to writing; 
that, when necessary, it might be used to invalidate the imputations to 
which those facts give color. 

" This consideration terminated my doubts. I do not think that a 
disclosure is necessary at this time ; but I fear such a moment will 
arrive. Whether I shall then be alive, or in capacity to give testimony, 
is so uncertain, that, in ord3r to avoid the risk of either, I shall now 
reduce it to writing, and commit it to your care and discretion, ' de bene 
esse,' as the lawyers say. 



996 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

" Some time before the address appeared, colonel (afterwards general) 
Hamilton informed me that he had received a letter from president 
Washington, and with it the draft of a farewell address, which the 
president had prepared, and on which he requested our opinion. He 
then proposed to fix on a day for an interview at my house on the sub- 
ject. A day was accordingly appointed ; and on that day Col. Hamil- 
ton attended. He observed to me in words to this effect, that, after 
having read and examined the draft, it appeared to him to be suscepti- 
ble of improvement. That the easiest and best way was to leave the 
draft untouched, and in its fair state ; and to write the whole over with 
such amendments, alterations, and corrections, as he thought were advisa- 
ble; and that he had done so. He then proposed to read it ; and we 
proceeded deliberately to discuss and consider it, paragraph by para- 
graph, until the whole met our mutual approbation. Some amendments 
were made during the interview, but none of much importance. 

" Although this business had not been hastily despatched, yet aware 
of the consequence of such a paper, I suggested the giving it a further 
critical examination ; but he declined it, saying he was pressed for time, 
and was anxious to return the draft to the president without delay. 

" It afterwards occurred to me, that a certain proposition was ex- 
pressed in terms too general and unqualified ; and I hinted it in a letter 
10 the president. As the business took the course above mentioned, a 
recurrence to the draft was unnecessary, and it was not read. There 
was this advantage in the course pursued : the president's draft remained, 
(as delicacy required,) fair and not obscured by interlineations, &c, 
By comparing it with the paper sent with it, he would immediately 
observe the particular emendations and corrections that were proposed, 
and would find them standing in their intended places. Hence he was 
enabled to review, and to decide the whole matter, with much greater 
clearness and facility, than if he had received them in separate and de- 
tached notes, and with detailed references to the pages and lines where 
they were advised to be introduced." 

This letter appears in Niles' Register of October 21, 1826, about 
three years before Mr. Jay's death. Whether it had been in print pre- 
vious to that time, or not, or what was the immediate cause of its 
publication, we are not informed. 

In 1836, after the death of Mr. Madison, which occurred the same 
year, remarks appeared in several papers, ascribing to him the author- 
ship of Washington's valedictory address, and tending to produce an 
erroneous impression. Mr. Sparks, editor of the writings of Washington, 
in anticipation of their publication, caused to be published the corres- 
pondence between Washington and Madison on the subject. 

In a letter to Mr. Madison, dated May 20, 1792, Washington, not 
having determined to be a candidate for reelection, requested him to 
draw up an address, to be used in case he should conclude to retire, and 
mentioned the principal topics which he wished it to contain. Mr. 
Madison, in compliance with the request, prepared a paper, and subse- 
quently delivered it to him in person. Having consented to a reelection, 
he had no occasion to use it. Compared with the address published 
four years after, it will be found to bear but a slight resemblance to it, 
while it is evident that it was consulted in preparing the final address. 



APPENDIX. 997 

The draft of Mr. Madison, it is unnecessary to say, was an able one, 
about one-fourth of the length of the last ; and is said to have met 
Washington's entire approbation at the time. 

Note to Page 557. 

The following, from the Intelligencer, contains little more than the 
conclusions of the court on the main points involved in the controversy. 

" The opinion of the chief justice was very elaborate and clear. lie 
took a review of the origin of the European title to lands in America, 
upon the ground of discovery. He established that this right was 
merely conventional among the European governments themselves, and 
for their own guidance, and the regulation of their own claims in regard 
to each other, and in no respect changed, or affected to change the rights 
of the Indians in respect to the soil. That the only effect of the Euro- 
pean title was, as between European nations, to recognize an exclusive 
right of trade and intercourse with the Indians, and of ultimate dominion 
in the territories occupied by the Indians in favor of the nation or gov- 
ernment whose subjects were the first discoverers. That all the Euro- 
pean governments, France, Spain, and especially Great Britain, had 
uniformly recognized the Indian tribes and nations as distinct commu- 
nities, capable of, and entitled to, self-government, as states, and in no 
respect, except as to their right of intercourse with other European 
nations, and the right of preemption in the discoverers to purchase their 
soil, as under the control or power of the Europeans. They were treated 
as nations capable of holding and ceding their territories, capable of 
making treaties and compacts, and entitled to all the powers of peace 
and war, and not as conquered and enslaved communities. He demon- 
strated this from various historical facts, and showed that when upon 
the revolution the United Colonies succeeded to the rights and claims 
of the mother country, the American congress uniformly adopted and 
adhered to the same doctrine, both before and after the confederation ; 
that, since the adoption of the constitution, the same doctrine had as 
uniformly prevailed in all the departments of the government ; and that 
the treaties were obligatory in the same sense as treaties between Euro- 
pean sovereigns. He showed also that this had been the established 
course of things, recognized by Georgia herself, from the adoption of 
the constitution down to the year 1829, as evinced by her solemn acts, 
compacts and laws. He then showed that, by the constitution, the ex- 
clusive power belonged to the United States to regulate intercourse with 
the Indians, and to receive cessions of their lands ; and to make treaties 
with them. That their independence of the state governments had been 
constantly upheld; that the right of possession to their land was 
solemnly guaranteed by the United States, and by treaties with them, 
until that title should, with their own consent, be extinguished; and 
that the laws passed by congress had regulated the trade and intercourse 
with them accordingly. He now reviewed the laws of Georgia in ques- 
tion, and pronounced them repugnant to the constitution, treaties and 
laws of the United States. And he concluded by maintaining that the 
party defendant in the present indictment was entitled to the protection 
of the constitution, treaties and laws of the United States; and that 



998 , APPENDIX. 

Georgia had no authority to extend her laws over the Cherokee coun- 
try, or to punish the defendant for disobedience to those laws in the 
Cherokee country." 



STATISTICS. 



STATEMENT OF THE EliECTORAL VOTES 

For the different candidates for President and Vice-President, from 1789 to 1853. 
The year of each election refers to the time of counting the electoral votes, and 
not to the time at which they were given. 

At the first four elections, no person was named for vice-president. Two per- 
sons were voted for by each elector ; and the person having next to the highest 
number of votes, was elected vice-president. 

1789 — N'UMBER OF Electors, 69. 



George Washington, Va 69 

John Adams, Mass 34 

John Jay, N. Y 9 

R. H. Harrison, 6 



John Rutledge, S. C. 6 

John Hancock, Mass 4 

George Clinton, A'; Y 3 

All others g 



Three states, viz : New York, entitled to 8 electoral votes, Rhode Island 3, and 
North Carolina 7, did not vote at this election. The first had not passed an 
electoral law ; the two last had not yet adopted the constitution. 

1793 — Number op Electors, 135. 



George Washington, (3 vacancies) . . 132 

John Adams 77 

George Clinton 50 



Thomas Jefferson 5 

Aaron Burr, N. Y. 1 



1797 — Number of Electors, 138. 



John Adams, 71 

Thomas Jefferson, 68 

Thomas Pinckney, 59 

Aaron Burr 30 

Samuel Adams, Mass 15 



Oliver Ellsworth, Conn 11 

George Clinton, 7 

John Jay, 5 

James Iredell, N. C 3 

All others, 7 



1801 — Number of Electors, 138. 

Thomas Jefferson, 73 1 Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, S. CM 

Aaron Burr, 73 John Jay, 1 

John Adams, 65 ( 

The two highest numbers of votes being equal, the election devolved upon the 
house of representatives. Mr. Jefferson was chosen on the 8Gth ballot. Before 
the next election, the present mode was established, by the adoption of the 12th 
amendment of the constitution. 



>000 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



1805 — Number of Electors, 176. 



For Vice-President. 

George Clinton, 162 

Rufus King, iV. y 14 



For President. 

Thomas Jefferson, 162 

Charles C. Pinckney 14 

1809 — Nu'MBER OF Electors, 176. 

James Madison, Va 122 I George Clinton, 113 

Charles C. Pinckney, 47 | Rufus King, 47 

George Clinton, 6 1 John Langdon, N. H 9 

One vacancy, 1 | Scattering and vacancy, 7 

1813 — Number of Electors, 217. 

James Madison, 128 I Elbridge Gerry, Mass 131 

De Witt Clinton, N. Y 89 | Jared Ingersoll, Pa 86 

1817 — Number of Electors, 221. 



James Monroe, Va 183 

Rufus King, 34 

Vacancies, 4 

1821- 



Daniel D. Tompkins, N. Y 183 

John E. Howard, Mass 22 

James Ross, 6 

All others and vacancies, 11 

-Number of Electors, 232. 

James Monroe, 281 I Daniel D. Tompkins, 218 

John Quincy Adams 1 | Richard Stockton, N. J 8 

I Daniel Rodney, Del 4 

I All others, 2 

1825 — Number of Electors, 261. 



Andrew Jackson, Tenn 99 

John Quincy Adams, 84 

Wm. H. Crawford, Ga 41 

Henry Clay, 37 



John C. Calhoun, S. C 182 

Nathan Sanford, iV. Y 30 

Nathaniel Macon, N. C 24 

Andrew Jackson, 13 

Martin Van Buren, 9 

Henry Clay, 2 ; 1 (/?. /.) not voting 3 

No candidate for president having a majority of all the votes, the election was 
made by the house from the three having received the highest numbers of votes ; 
the representatives voting by states. Mr. Adams received the votes of 13 states, 
(a majority ;) Gen. Jackson, 7; Mr. Crawford, 4. 

1829 — Number of Electors, 261. 



Andrew Jackson, 178 

John Quincy Adams, 83 



John C. Calhoun, 171 

Richard Rush, Pa 83 

John Sergeant, Pa 7 



1833 — Number of Electors, 288. 



Andrew Jackson, 219 

Henry Clay 49 

John Floyd, Va 11 

Wm. Wirt, Va., (anti-mason,) 7 

Vacancies, 2 



Martin Van Buren, 189 

John Sergeant,... 49 

William Wilkins, Pa 30 

Henry Lee, Va 11 

Amos Ellmaker, Pa., (anti-mason,). 7 
Vacancies, 2 

1837 — Number of Electors, 294. 

Martin Van Biaren, 170 I Richard M. Johnson, Ky 147 

William H. Harrison, 73 | Francis Granger, A'! Y 77 

Hugh L. White, Tenn 26 I John Tyler, Va 47 

Daniel Webster, 14 William' Smith, S. C 23 

Willie P. Mangum, N. C 11 j 

No candidate for vice-president having received a majority, Col. Johnson was 
elected by the senate. 



APPENDIX. 



1001 



1841 — Number of Electors, 294. 



William H. Harrison 234 

Martin Van Buren, 60 



John Tyler, 234 

Richard M. Johnson, 48 

Littleton W. Tazewell, Va 11 

James K. Polk, Tenn 1 



1845 — Number op Electors, 275. 



James K. Polk, 170 

Henry Clay,... 105 



George M. Dallas, Pa 170 

Theodore Frelinghuy£en, 106 



1849 — Number op Electors, 290. 

Zaqhary 'faylor, La 163 [ Millard Fillmore, N. Y 163 

Lewis Cass 127 | William 0. Butler, Ky 127 

1853 — Number op Electors, 296. 

Franklin Pierce, N. H 254 I William R. King, Ala 254 

Winfield Scott, Va 42 | William A. Graham, 42 



Secretaries of State. 



Thomas Jefferson, Fa.. .Sept. 26, 1789 
Edmund Randolph, Fa.. ..Jan. 2, 1794 
Timothv Pickering, ikfass. Dec. 16, 1795 

John Marshall, Va May 13, 1800 

James Madison, Fa March 5,1801 

Robert Smith, Md March 6, 1809 

James Monroe, Va Nov. 25, 1811 

John Q. Adams, iWass.. .March 3, 1817 

Henry Clay, Ky March 8, 1825 

Martin Van Buren, iV. Y.March 6, 1829 
Edward Livingston, La.. 1831 

Louis M'Lane, Del March, 7, 1833 



John Forsyth, Ga 

Daniel Webster, Mass . . 
Hugh S. Legare, ,S. C. 
Abel P. Upshur, Fa ... . 
John Nelson, (acting) . . 
John C. Calhoun, S. C. 
James Buchanan, Pa... 
John M. Clayton, Del.. 
Daniel Webster, Mass . . 
Edward Everett, Mass.. 
Wm. L. Marcy,Ar. y... 



. June 27, 
. March 5, 
. . May 9, 
.June 24, 
.Feb. 29, 
, March 6, 
. March 5, 
March 7, 
. July 20, 

, March 5, 



1834 
1841 
1843 
1843 
1844 
1844 
1845 
1849 
1850 
1852 
1853 



Secretaries of the Treasury. 



Alex. Hamilton, N.Y.... Sept. 11, 1789 

Oliver Wolcotfc, Conn Feb. 3, 1795 

Samuel Dexter, Mass Dec. 31, 1800 

Albert Gallatin, Pa Jan. 26, 1802 

Geo. W. Campbell, Tenn..Ye\,. 9, 1814 

Alex. J. Dallas, Pa Oct. 6, 1814 

Wm. H. Crawford, Ga... March 5, 1817 

Richard Rush, Pa " 7, 1825 

Samuel D. Ingham, Pa.. " 6,1829 

Louis M'Lane, Del 1831 

Wm. J. Duane, Pa 1833 



Roger B. Taney, Md... 

(not confirmed.) 
Levi Woodbury, N. U... 

Thomas Ewing, O 

Walter Forward, Pa 

John C. Spencer, N. Y. 
George M. Bibb, Ky... 
Robert J. Walker, Miss. 
Wm. M. Meredith, Pa.. 

Thomas Corwin, O 

James Guthrie, Ky 



1833 

.June 21, 1834 
March 5, 1841 
, Sept. 13, 1841 
March 3, 1843 
.Jan. 15, 1844 
. March 6, 1845 
, " 7, 1849 
.July 20, 1850 
March 5, 1853 



Secretaries of War. 



Henry Knox, Mass Sept. 12, 1789 

Timothy Pickering, Mass.. Jan. 2, 1795 

James M'Henry, Md Jan. 27, 1796 

Samuel Dexter, Mass May 13,1800 

Roger Griswold, Co?^?^ .... Feb. 3,1801 
Henry Dearborn, Mass.. March 4, 1801 
William Eustis, Mass. .. " 7, 1809 
John Armstrong, N. y...Jan. 19, 1813 

James Monroe, Va Sept. 26, 1814 

Wm. H. Crawford, Ga.. .March 2, 1815 
Isaac Shelbv, ify. (dec.).. " 5,1817 
John C. Calhoun, S. C. .Dec, 16, 1817 

James Barbour, Va March 7, 1825 

■peter B. Porter, N.Y.... May 26, 1828 



John H. Eafon, Tenn March 9, 1829 

Lewis Cass, Ohio 1831 

Joel R. Poinsett, S". C. .March 7, 1837 

John Bell, Tenn " 5, 1841 

John M'Lean, (declined). Sept. 13, 1841 
John C. Spencer, N. Y.. .Oct. 12, 1841 

James M. Porter, Pa March 8, 1843 

William Wilkins, Pa Feb. 15, 1844 

AVm. L. Marcy, N. Y. . . . March 5, 1845 
George W. Crawford, Ga. " 7, 1849 
Edmund Bates, (declined) July 20, 1850 
Charles M. Conrad, £a..Aug. 15, 1850 
Jefierson Davis, Miss.. .March 5, 1853 



1002 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 



Secretaries of the Navy. 



George Cabot, Mass May 8, 1798 

Bcnj. Stocldart, Md " 21, 1798 

Robert Smith, Md Jan. 26, 1802 

J. Crowniiishield, Mass.. March 2, 1805 

Paul Hamilton, S. C " 7, 1809 

B. W. Crowninshield, Mass.Dec. 17, 1814 
Smith Thompson, TV. r..Nov. 80, 1818 
Samuel L. Southard, A- J.. Dec. 9, 1823 

John Branch, iV. C March 9, 1829 

Levi Woodbury, N- H... 1831 

Mahlon Dickerson, N- J. . June 30, 1834 



Jas. K. Paulding. iV. Y.. . June 30, 1838 
Geo. E. Badger. TV. C, .March 6, 1841 
Abel P. Upshur, Fa.... Sept. 13, 1841 
David Henshaw, Mas.'!... .July 24, 1843 
Thomas W. Gilmer, Va. . .Feb. 15', 1844 

John Y. Mason, Va March 14, 1844 

George Bancroft, Mass. " 10, 1845 

John Y. Mason, Va 1846 

VVm. A. Graham, N. C. .July 20, 1850 
James C. Dobbin, N- C. March 6, 1853 



Secretaries of the interior. 

Thomas Ewing, O March 7, 1849 I Robert M'Clelland, iJficA .. March, 1853 

Alex. H. H. Stuart, Fa.. Sept. 12, 1850 | 



P ostmaster s-General. 



Samuel Osgood, Afass ... Sept- 26, 1789 
Timothy Pickering, Mass.. Nov. 7, 1794 

Jacob Habersham, Ga Feb. 25, 1795 

Gideon Granger, Conn Jan. 26, 1802 

Return J. Meigs, O.. ..March 17, 1814 

John M'Lean, O Dec 9, 1823 

William T. Barry, Ky . . .March 9, 1829 
Amos Kendall, Ky May 1, 1835 



John M. Niles, Conn May 25, 

Francis Granger, N. Y". ..March 6, 
Charles A. AVickliffe, /fy.. Sept. 13, 
Cave Johnson, Temi.. ..March 5, 

Jacob Callomer, VI " 7, 

Nathan K. Hall, N. Y. . . .July 20, 
Samuel D. Hubbard, Conn. Oct. , 
James Campbell, Pewn .. March 5, 



Attorneys-General. 



Edmund Randolph, Fa.. Sept. 26, 1789 
William Bradford, Pa.... Jan. 27, 1794 

Charles Lee, Va Dec- 10, 1795 

Levi Lincoln, Mass March 5, 1801 

Robert Smith, Md " 3, 1805 

John Breckenridge, Ky.. .Jan. 17, 1806 

Csesar A. Rodney, Del Jan. 20, 1807 

William Pinknev, Del Dec- 11, 1811 

Richard Rush, Pa Feb. 10, 1814 

William Wirt, Va Dec- 16, 1817 

John M'P. Berrien, Ga.. March 19, 1829 
Roger B. Taney, Md Dec. 1831 



Benj. F. Butler, N. Y.. ..Dec 25, 

Felix Grundy, Tenn Sept- 1, 

Henry D. Gilpin, Pa Jan- 11, 

John J. Crittenden, Ky.. March 5, 
Hugh S. Legare, S. C. . . Sept. 13, 

John Nelson, Md July 1, 

John Y. Mason, Va March 6, 

Nathan Clififord, Me.... 
Isaac Toucey, Cojin .... 
Reverdy Johnson, Md.. March 6, 
John J. Crittenden, ify.. July 20, 
Caleb Cushing, Mass.. . . March 5, 



1840 
1841 
1841 
1845 
1S49 
1850 
1852 
1853 



1835 
1838 
1840 
1841 
1S41 
1843 
1845 
1847 
1848 
1849 
1850 
1853 



Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. 

John Jay, N. Y Sept. 26, 1789 I John Jay, N. Y Dec 19, 1800 

John Rutledge, 5'. C July 1, 1795 | John Marshall, Va Jan- 27, 1801 

William Cushing, Mass. .Jan. 27, 1796 | Roger B.Taney, Md Dec 28, 1835 

Oliver Ellsworth, Co7i?i.. March 4, 1796 



Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. 



John Rutledge, 5'. C... Sept. 26, 1789 
William Cushing, Mass.. " 27, 1789 
Robert H Harrison, Md. " 28, 1789 

James Wilson, Pa " 29,1789 

John Blair, Va " 30, 17S9 

James Iiedcll, N. C Feb. 10, 1790 

Thomas Johnson, Md Nov. 7, 1791 

Wm. Patlerson, N. Y.. .March 1, 1798 

Samuel Cha.se, Md Jan. 27, 1796 

Bushrod Washington, Fa. Dec 20, 179S 
Wm Johnson, S. C March 20, 1S04 



Joseph Story, Mass Nov. 18, 

Smith Thompson, N.Y.... Dec 9, 

Robert Trimble, Ky March 9, 

John M'Lean, O " 7, 

Henry Baldwin, Pa Jan. 0, 

James M. Wayne, Ga Jan. 18, 

Philiji B, Barbour, Fa.. March 15, 

Wiili.nm Smith, Ala " 8, 

J(hn Catron, I'enii " 8, 

Jdlm M'Kinley, Ala Sept. 3, 

Peter V. Daniel, Va March 3, 



1811 

1823 
1826 
1829 
1830 
1835 
1836 
1837 
1837 
1837 
1837 



1003 



Brock. Livingston, iV. y. . Jan. 16, 1807 

Thomas Todd, Va March 3, 1807 

Levi Lincoln, Mass Jan. 7, 1811 

John Q.Adams, (declined) Feb. 22, 1811 
Gabriel Duval, Md Nov. 18, 1811 



Samuel Nelson, iV. Y. 
Levi Woodbury, N. H. 
Robert C Grier, Pc . . . 
Benj. R. Curtis, Mass. 
Ed. A. Bradford, La.. . 



• Feb. 
. . Jan. 



1845 
1846 
1846 
1850 
1852 



Congress of the United States. 



The number of representatives from each state, until after the first enumeration 
in 1790, was specified in the constitution. By the act of apportionment of 1792, 
the several states were allowed a representative for every 33,000 of the representa- 
tive population ; which gave an aggregate representation of 106. In 1802, tho 
ratio of representation under the census of 1800, was again fixed at 33,000, making 
a house of 142 members. Under the census 1810, the ratio was 35,000, and the 
number of members 182. Under the census of 1820, the ratio was 40,000, and 
the number of members 213. After 1830, the ratio was made 47,700, with a 
house of 240. After the census of 1840, a ratio of 70,680 was adopted, making 
223 members. After the census of 1850, the ratio was 93,000, giving an aggregate 
representation of 233 members, of which number, California had one; but by 
epecial enactment that state was allowed an additional member, making in all 234. 

Compensation of Members of Congress. 

From the first congress, in 1789, inclusive, until March 4, 1795, senators and 
representatives received each S6 per diem, and $Q for every twenty miles travel. 
From March 4, 1795, to March 4, 1796, senators received $7, and representatives 
S6 per diem. From March 4, 1796, until December 5, 1815, the per diem was $6, and 
the mileage $G, to senators and representatives. From Dec. 4, 1815, until March 
4, 1817, each senator and representative received $1,500 per annum^ with apropor- 
tional deduction for absence, from any cause but sickness. The president of the 
senate pro tempore,and speaker of the house, $3,000 per annum, each. From March 
4, 1817, the compensation to members of both houses has been $S per diem, and 
S8 for every twenty miles travel ; and to the president of the senate pro tempore, 
and speaker of the house, $16 per diem. 

Speakers op the House of Representatives. 



Congress. 

1st, Frederick A. Muhlenburg, Pa. 

2d, Jonathan Trumbull, Con7i. 

3d, F. A. Muhlenburg, Pa. 

4th, Jonathan Dayton, N. J. 

5th, Jonathan Dayton, N. J. 

6th, Theodore Sedgwick, Mass. 

7th, Nathaniel Macon, N. C. 

8th, Nathaniel Macon, N. C. 

9th, Nathaniel Macon, N. C. 

10th, Joseph B. Varnum, Mass. 

11th, Joseph B. Varnum, Mass. 

12th, Henry Clay, Ky. 

18th, Henry Clay, Ky. 

" Langdon Cheves, S. C. 

14th, Henry Clay, Ky. 

15th, Henry Clay, Ky. 

\6th, Henry Clay, Ky. 

John ;V. Taylor, N. Y. 



Congress. 

17th, P. P. Barbour, Va. 

18th, Henry Clay, Ky. 

19th, JohnW. Taylor, N. Y. 

20th, Andrew Stevenson, Va. 

21st, Andrew Stevenson, Va. 

22d, Andrew Stevenson, Va. 

23d, Andrew Stevenson, Va. 

John Bell, Tenn. 

24th, James K. Polk, Tenn. 

25th, James K. Polk, Tarn. 

26th, Robert M. T. Hunter, Va, 

27th, John White, Ky. 

28th, John W. Jones, Va. 

29th, John W. Davis, Ind. 

30th, Robert C. Winthrop, Mass. 

31st, Howell Cobb, Ga. 

32d, Linn Boyd, Ky. 

33d, 



1004 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



Senators Elected Presidents of the Senate pro tempore. 



John Lanadon, N. H April, 

Richard Henry Lee, Va " 

John Langdon, N. H May 

John Langdon, N. H March 

Ralph Izard, S. C May 

Henry Tazewell, Va Feb. 

Samuel Livermore, A'', .ff. ..May 

William Bingham, Penn Feb 

William Bradford, R.I July 

Jacob Read, 5"- C Nov- 

Theodore Sedgwick. Mass.. June 

John Lawrence, N. Y Dec 

James Ross, Penn March 

Samuel Livermore, N. H Dec. 

Uriah Tracey, Conn May 

John E. Howard, Md Nov. 

James Hillhouse, Conn Feb. 

Abraham Baldwin, Ga Dec 

Stephen R. Bradley, VI Dec 

John Brown, Ky Oct.; 

Jesse Franklin, A''. C March, 

Joseph Anderson, Tenn Jan- 
Samuel Smith, Md Dec. 



1789 
1792 
1792 
1793 
1794 
1795 
1796 
1797 
1797 
1797 
1798 
1798 
1799 
1799 
1800 
1800 
1801 
1801 
1802 
1803 
1804 
1805 
1805 



Stephen R- Bradley, Vt Dec, 1808 

John Milledge, Ga Jan-, 1809 

Andrew Gregg, Penn " '• 

John Gaillard, S- C Feb-, 1810 

John Pope, Ky Feb- 1811 

William H- Crawford, Ga.. March, 1812 
Joseph B- Varnum, Mass. . ..Dec., 1813 

John Gaillard, S. C April, 1814 

James Barbour, Va Feb., 1819 

John Gaillard, iS. C Jan., 1820 

Nathaniel Macon, A''. C May, 1826 

Samuel Smith, Mrf " 1828 

Littleton W. Tazewell, Fa.. July, 1832 

Hugh L. White, Tenn Dec, 18.32 

George Poindexter, Miss Jan-, 1834 

John Tyler, Va March, 1835 

William R. King, Ala July, 1836 

Samuel L. Southard, N. y..Mar., 1841 
Willie P. Mangum, N- C....May, 1842 
David R. Atchison, Missouri., kug., 1846 

William R. King, Ala July, 1850 

and 
David R. Atchison, Missouri,. Bee. 1852 



APPENDIX. 1 00: 



IMPORTS AND EXPORTS 

From the tear 1821 to 1850, with the Net Revenue accruing from 
THE Imports. 





Ini])orts, 


Exports, 


Net 


Imports, 


Exports, 




including 


including 


Revenue. 


coin and 


coin and 


Year. 


specie. 


si^ecie. 




bullion. 


bullion. 


1821 


1162,585,724 


^64,974,382 


$15,155,418 






1822 


82,241,541 


72,160,281 


21,219,116 






1823 


77J579,267 


74,699,030 


17,717,830 






1824 


80,549,007 


75,986,657 


20,215,059 






1825 


96,340,075 


99,535,388 


25,387,904 


$6,150,765 


$8,932,034 


1826 


84,974,477 


77,595,322 


18,997,478 


6,880,966 


4,704,533 


1827 


79,484,008 


82,324,827 


22,378,046 


8,151,130 


8^014,880 


1828 


88,509,824 


72,264,686 


24,890,337 


7,489,741 


8,243,476 


1829 


74,492^227 


72,358,671 


22,296,512 


7,403,612 


4,924,020 


1830 


70,876,920 


73,849,508 


22,833,573 


8,155,964 


2,178,773 


1831 


103,191,124 


81,310,583 


30,312,851 


7,305,945 


9,014,931 


1832 


101,029,266 


87,176,943 


21,488,890 


5,907,504 


5,565,340 


1833 


108,181,311 


90,140,433 


14,797,782 


7,070,368 


2,011,701 


1834 


126,521,332 


104,336,972 


13,458,111 


17,911,632 


2,076,758 


1835 


149,895,742 


121,693,577 


21,552,272 


13^131,447 


6,477,775 


1836 


189,980,035 


128,663,040 


26,325,839 


13,400,881 


4,324,336 


1837 


140,989,217 


117,419,376 


13,315,129 


10,516,414 


5,976,249 


1838 


113,717,404 


108,486,616 


15,373,238 


17,747,116 


3,508,046 


1839 


162,092,132 


121,028,416 


20,560,439 


5,595,176 


8,776,743 


1840 


107,141,519 


132,085,946 


10,159,339 


8,882,813 


8,417,014 


1841 


127,946,477 


121,851,803 


15,510,589 


4,988,633 


10,034,332 


1842 


100,162,087 


104,691,534 


12,780,173 


4,087,016 


4,813,539 


1843* 


64,763,799 


84,346,480 


6,132,272 


22,390,559 


1,520,791 


1844 


108,435,035 


111,200,046 


26,183,570 


5,830,429 


5,454,214 


1845 


117.254,564 


114,646,606 


27,528,112 


4,070,242 


8,600.495 


1846 


121,091,797 


113 488,516 


26,712,608 


3,777,732 


3,905^268 


1847 


146,545,638 


158,648,622 


23,747,864 


24,121,289 


1,907,739 


1848 


154,977,928 


154,436,436 


31,757,070 


6,360^224 


15,841,620 


1849 


147,857,439 


145,755,820 


28,346,738 


6,651,240 


5,404,648 


1850 


178,138.318 


151,898,720 


39,668,686 


4,628,792 


7.522,994 


1851 


216,224,932 


218,388,011 


49,017^567 


5,453,592 


29,472J52 


1852 


212,945,442 


209,641,625 


49,339,326 


5,503,544 


42,674,135 


1853 


267,978,647 


230,452,250 


58,931,865 


4,201,382 


27,486,875 


1854 


304,562,381 


278,241,064 


64,224,190 


6,906,162 


41,422,423 


* Nine Months. 











1006 



THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 



A STATEMENT 



Exhibiting the Value of certain articles Exported Anncally prom 

1821 TO 1852, INCLUSIVE, 



Year. 


Cotton. 


Tobacco. 


Eice. 


Breadstuffs. 


1821 


)^20,157,484 


$5,648,962 


!$1,494,307 


§12,341,901 


1822 


24,035,058 


6,222,838 


1,553,482 


13,886,856 


1823 


20,445,520 


6,282,672 


1,820,985 


13,707,847 


1824 


21,947,401 


4,855,566 


1,882,982 


15,059,484 


1825 


36,846,049 


6,115,623 


1,925,245 


11,634,449 


1826 


25,025,214 


5,347,208 


1,917,445 


11,303,496 


1827 


29,359,545 


6,577,123 


2,343,908 


11,685,556 


1828 


22,487,229 


5,209,960 


2,620,696 


11,461,144 


1829 


26,575,311 


4,982,974 


2,514,370 


13,131,858 


1830 


29,674,883 


5,586,365 


1,986,824 


12,075,430 


1831 


25,289,492 


4,892,388 


2,016,267 


17,538,227 


1832 


31,724,082 


5,999,709 


2,152,631 


12,424,703 


1833 


36,191,105 


5.755,968 


2,744,418 


14,209,128 


1834 


49,448,402 


6,595,305 


2,122,272 


11,524,024 


1835 


64,961,302 


8,250,577 


2,210,331 


12,009,399 


1836 


71,284,925 


10,058,640 


2,548,750 


10,614,130 


1837 


63,240,102 


5,795,647 


2,309,270 


9,588,359 


1838 


61,556,811 


7,392,029 


1,721,819 


9,036,650 


1839 


61,238,982 


9,832,943 


2,460,198 


14,147,779 


1840 


53,870,307 


9,883,957 


1,942,076 


19,007,535 


1841 


54,330,341 


12,576,703 


2,010,107 


17,196,102 


1842 


47,593,464 


9,540,755 


1,907,387 


16,992,876 


1843 


49,119,806 


4,650,979 


1,625,726 


11,204,123 


1844 


54,063,501 


8,307,255 


2,182,468 


17,970,135 


1845 


51,739,643 


7,469,819 


2,160,456 


16.743,421 


1846 


42,767,341 


8,478,270 


2,564,991 


27,701,121 


1847 


53,415,848 


7,242,088 


3,605,896 


68,701,921 


1848 


61,998,294 


7,551,122 


2,331,824 


37,472,751 


1849 


66,390,967 


5,804,207 


2,569,262 


38,155,507 


1850 


71,984,616 


9,951,023 


2,631,557 


20,051,373 


1851 


112,315,317 


9,219,251 


2,170,927 


21,948,651 


1852 


87,965,732 


10,031,283 


2,470,029 


25,857,027 



INDEX. 



1007 



INDEX. 



ALbolition of slavery in District of Columbia, 466 , 653 ; moTement, history of, 
640, &c. ; opposition meetings at the north, and the press, 641-3 ; rewards 
for abolitionists, 641. 

Act of neutrality, 133; navigation acts of Great Britain, 35; of the United 
States, 283. 

Adams John, on the right of colonial taxation, 34 ; mmister to Holland, 52 ; to 
' England, 55 ; elected president, 156 ; inaugurated, 157 ; his cabinet, 
160 ; opposition to his administration by Hamilton and others, ITS- 
ISO,' 189. 

Adams, John Quincy, commissioner to Ghent, 264 ; secretary of state, elected 
president, and inaugurated, 343-4 ; charge of coalition with Clay, 345, 
&c ; controversy with Giles, 429-41 ; with the Boston federalists, 
442,' &c. 

Adams, Charles Francis, nominated for vice-president, 881. 

Adet French minister, presents the colors of France, 141 ; interference of in the 
' election, 153 ; orders the tri-colored cockade worn, 153. 

Algiers, naval force against, 129, 130; treaty with, 140. 

Alfiance with France, 50-1 ; of France and Spain, 147. 

Alien and sedition laws, 170-72. 

Ambrister and Arbuthnot, trial and execution of, 290-3. 

Amendments of constitution, 975 ; how made, 973 ; adoption of, 108. 

Amistad, schooner, capture of, trial of captives, 723-7 ; Forsyth and the British 
minister, 727. 

Andros, Edmund, colonial governor of New York, 30 

Annexation of Texas, (see Texas). 

Vnti-masonrv, rise and progress of, 463-6 ; candidate for president, 564. 

ipportionment of representatives, how made, 966 ; bill for, vetoed, 93 ; nnder 
second census, 202 ; under fifth census, 503. 

A.ppropriation of three millions, attempted, to aid negotiation with Mexico, 032-3. 

A.rcher, Wm. S., senator, remarks on " woolens bill," 410. 

Arkansas, territory of, formed, — ; state of, admitted, 656-61. 

Armistice with Great Britain, proposed and declined, 260-1. 

Atherton, C. G., resolutions of, against abolition pejtitions, 653. 

Attorneys-general, list of, 1000. 

Aurora newspaper, opposition of, to Washington, 149, 152, 155-6. 

Bache, B. F., editor of Advertiser newspaper, 115 ; of Aurora, 149. 

Badger, George E., secretary of the navy, 744; resignation of, and testimony con- 
cernTng Tyler's veto, 749, 752 ; speech in senate, on Nebraska bill, 951. 

Bancroft, George, secretary of the navy, 832; minister to England, 

Bank of the United States, incorporated, 88-91; new, proposed, 272; chartered, 
281 ; affairs investigated, 304 ; decided constitutional, 305, &c. ; Mary- 
land and Ohio branches taxed, 305, &c. ; Jackson's message on, 500 ; 
M'Duffie's and Smith's reports on, 500-6 ; recharter prayed for, and 
reports on, vetoed by Jackson, 566-7 ; charges against, investigated, 
Adams' report on, 569-75; removal of deposits from, 591-5; Jackson's 
charges against, 592; controversy with directors, 595-600, alleged 
reduction of loans, secret drafts on, 601 ; rei)orts on, 611-12; dispute 
concerning jjension agency ; nomination of directors rejected, 613-15 
Bills for, and vetoes of Tyier, 774-9 : further account of, 749-55. 



1008 THE AMERICAN ETATESMAN, 

Bankrupt and insolvent laws, question of constitutionality decided, 308-9- 

Barbary powers, act to protect our commerce against, 210. 

Barlow. Joel, minister to France, 250. 

Barton, David, of Missouri, senator, on removals from office, 484-5. 

Barry, Wm. T., postmaster-general, and minister to Spain, biS. 

Battle of New Orleans, picture of, proposed, 467. 

Bayard, James A., and the election of 1801, 192-5; commissioner to negotiate 
peace with Great Britain, 264. 

Bell, John, of Tennessee, speaker of the house, 619; compromise resolutions, 903. 

Benton, Thomas H., of Missouri, senator, report on executive patronage, re- 
trencliment, &c., 348-9; on Foot's resolutions, 490; expunging resolu 
tion, 621, 623-7 ; on Calhoun's report on executive patronage and dis- 
tribution, 624-5; on branch mints, 630 ; propositions, for defense against 
France, 635; his account of action on anti-abolition bill, 653; Boonville 
speech on annexation of Texas, 825-6 ; on compromise of 1850, 896 ; on 
Texas boundarj', 905. 

Berkeley, Sir William, governor of Virginia colony, 28. 

Berlin and Milan decrees, 226-8 ; conditional revocation of, 235 ; repealed, 258. 

Berrien, John M'Pherson, attorney-general, 477; resignation of, 548; account 
of the cause of the cabinet rupture, 550-1. 

Beverly Carter, letter accusing Clay, 394 ; retracts the charge. 

Bibb, George M., of Kentucky, senator, on power of removal, 485-6. 

Binney, Horace, speech on removal of deposits, 604-6. 

Birney, James G., nominated for president, 735. 

Boston, riots, tea destroyed, port bill, &c., 43-5. 

Botts, John M., letter on Tyler's bank veto, 753. 

Bourbons restored, in France, 267. 

Bradford, AVilliam, attorney-general, 124 ; death of, 140. 

Branch, John, secretary of the navy, 477 ; resignation of, and statement concern- 
ing cabinet controversy, 548. 

Brown, Bedford, of N. C, senator, on Van Buren's nomination, 555 ; on expung- 
ing resolution, 621. 

Brown, Wm. J., of Indiana, representative, voted for as speaker, under pledge, 893. 

Buchanan, James, of Pa., respecting the "coalition," 396, &c. ; on the woolens 
bill, 409; on French indemnity, 634; on postponing fourth instalment, 
683 ; secretary of state, 832. 

Burr, Aaron, elected vice-president, 191-2. 

Butler, Benj. F., attorney-general, 617. 

Butlez', Wm. 0., candidate for vice-president, 876-8. 

Cabinet officers, lists of, 999, 1000. 

Cabinets, ruptures of, 188-9, (Adams') ; 548, (Jackson's) ; 749, (Tyler's). 

Calhoun, John C, war report, 252; supportstariff of 1816, 280; controversy with 
Jackson, in relation to the Seminole war, 536, &c. ; reports a deposit 
bill, 620; on executive patronage and distribution of surplus revenue, 
624; on French indemnity, 634; on postponement of fourth instalment, 
684 ; on compromise of 1850, 896-9 ; views on internal improvements 
and protection, &c., 991 ; death of, 937. 

California, admission of, as a state, 902-3-5-12; Seward's speech in favor of, 912. 

Callender, Tliomas, editor and publisher of " Prospect before us," and " The Ex- 
aminer," 185. 

Capitol at Washington, burnt, 268. 

Carolina, settlement of, 31. 

Cass, Lewis, secretary of war, 548 ; nominated for president, proceedings of con- 
vention, 876-7 ; letter to Nicholson, 881-2; remarks on compromise of 
1850, 980-37 ; on Nebraska bill, 951-2. 

Caucuses, congressional, 282, 341 ; history of, 342. 

Census, provision for taking, 966 ; apportionment of representatives under the 
different censuses, 1001. 

Charter governments, described, 22. 

Chambers, E. F., of Maryland, senator, on Van Buren's nomination, 553. 

Chase, S. P., of Ohio, senator, on Nebraska bill, 944-50. 



INDEX. looy 

Cherokee Indians, controversy with, 510, &c. ; menaorial against removal, 511 
their title disputed, 512; bills for their removal, and debate on, 514-24 
subjected to laws of Georgia, 525 ; case iu the supreme court, 526-7 
their government annulled by Georgia, missionaries imprisoned, 555-6 
decision of supreme court^.treaty for removal, 557-9- 

Chesapeake, frigate, affair of, 223-5. 

Choctaw Indians, treaty with, 524. 

Claims of states for interest on moneys advanced during the war, 561-2 ; against 
Mexico, 665. 

Clay, Henry, commissioner to Ghent, 264, 267; on bank of the U. S., 281; on 
tariff of 1824, 323-31 ; charge of coalition against, 345; on Van Buren's 
nomination, 554 ; nominated for president, 564 ; resolution on removal 
of deposits, 605 ; letters on annexation, 749-802, 810; nominated for 
president, 809 ; resolution on compromise of 1860, 895; his death, 937. 

Clayton, John M., Del., on Van Buren's nomination, 554 ; secretary of state, 892 ; 
motion of, to disallow foreigners to vote in Nebraska and Kansas, 952. 

Cobbett, William, (Peter Porcupine,) editor of Poi-cupine's Gazette, 185. 

Clinton, George, 54; elected vice-president, 212 ; casting vote against bank, 281 ; 

Clinton, De Witt, nominated for president, 250 ; vote for, 262. 

Coalition, alleged, of Adams and Clay, 345, &c. 

Cockade, tri-colored, worn by Frenchmen, 153 ; black, 168. 

Coles, Edward, of Indiana, publishes Jefferson's opinion of Adams and Jackson, 
428-9. 

Columbia, district of, ceded for a seat of government, 85-6 ; river, occupation of. 
377, &c. 

Compromise, constitutional, on slavery, 70, 71; Missouri, 313, &c.; of 1850, 
895-912; Clay's resolutions, 895; Bell's, 903; remarks of Benton, Cal- 
houn and Webster, 896-902 ; bills passed, 905, 911-12; Benton on Texas 
boundary bill, 905 ; speeches of Seward and Cass, 912-37. 

Commerce, power of congress to regulate, 969. 

Confederation of colonies in New England, 25 ; government of, articles adopted, 
49 ; defects of 52. 

Congress of deputies, in 1765, '74, '75, 46; under the confederation, how consti- 
tuted, and. powers of, 48 ; under the constitution, (see constitution, Art. I.) 

Connecticut, colony, settlement and government of, 23-4. 

Constitution, compromises of, 70, 71 ; amendment of, 77, 108, 210. 

Convention, constitutional, preliminary measures for, 57 ; meeting and proceed- 
ings of, 60, &c. 

Congress, compensation of members of, 282, 1001 ; state of parties in, 602 ; con- 
test for seats in, 728; of Vienna, representatives to, 61. 

Craig, Sir James H., and the British plot, 248-9. 

Crawford, Wm. H., on bank of the United States, 501 ; minister to France, 264 ; 
secretary of war, March, 1815 ; secretary of the treasury, 288. 

Creek Indians, (see Indians.) 

Creole affair, 766-8 ; resolutions of Mr. Giddings, 768-70. 

Cuthbert, Alfred, of Geo., senator, on French indemnity, 624. 

Dallas, Alexander, secretary of the treasury, 283 ; proposes a bank, 272 : report 

of, on tariff, 280. 

Dallas, Geo. M., senator, report of, on bank, 566. 

Davie, Wra. K., envoy to France, 179. 

Debts due British subjects, payment of, 203. 

Debt, public, (see public debt.) 

Declaration of Independence, 47, 963. 

Decrees, French, Berlin and Milan, 227-8; Rambouillet, 234; repeal decree, 268 

Democratic societies, 116, 136. 

Department of the interior, established, 891. 

Deposits, public, removal of, from bank of the United States, 591-4; agency of 
Amos Kendall to negotiate with state banks, 592; meeting in Philadel- 
phia, and effect of removal, 600 ; debate on, in the house, 602-6 ; Clay's 
resolutions, 605-0; Benton's, 606 ; president's protest, 607; Calhoun's 
bill to regulate, G20 ; bill to postpone fourth instalment, 682 ; passed, 688. 
64 



1010 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Dickerson, Mahlon, of N. J., senator, plan of, to distribute proceeds of land sales, 

472-4 ; secretary of the navy, 617. 
Distribution of proceeds of land sales, Dickerson's plan, 472-4 ; report on, in the 

house, 475; Clay's report and bill 559-60; passed and vetoed, 587 ; 

new bill, 589 ; bill vetoed by Tyler, 784. 
Disunion, attempt at, charged, 459 ; prayed for, 766, 766. 
Douglas, Stephen A., reports Nebraska bill, speech on, 941-4. 
Duane, James, editor of Aurora, (successor to Bache,) 185. 
Duane, Wm. J., secretary of the treasury, 592; refuses to remove deposits, and is 

removed, 694. 
Duties, act to lay, 1788, 75-6 ; increased, 86-7, 94 ; internal duties repealed, 203 , 

act imposing internal duties, 264-5. 

Eaton, John H., of Tennessee, secretary of war, 477 ; resignation of, correspond- 
ence with Ingham, and challenge, 548-9. 

Electors of president, how chosen, (see constitution) ; when and where give their 
votes ; law for a uniform time of electing, 831. 

EUmaker, Amos, of Pa., anti-masonic candidate for vice-president, 664. 

Ellsworth, Oliver, envoy of France, 179; chief justice to the supreme court, 1000. 

Embargo act of 1807, 228 ; effects of, 232 ; act of 1812, 250 ; another, 265-6 ; re- 
pealed, 266. 

Ewing, Thomas, secretary of the treasury, 744 ; resignation of, 749 ; secretary of 
the interior, 892. 

Executive department, plans of, proposed in convention, 71, 72. 

Executive patronage, Benton's report on, 348-9 ; Calhoun's, and debate on, 624-9. 

Expunging resolution of Benton, 621-2. 

Fenno, editor of United States Gazette, 97. 

Fillmore, Millard, elected vice-president, 882 ; becomes president, his cabinet, 910. 

Florida war, 289, &c. (see Seminole war.) 

Florida, state of, admitted into the union, 831. 

Foot, Samuel A., of Conn., resolutions of, on the public lands, 487; resolutions 
debated, by Hayne and Webster, 488-96 ; remarks of Benton, Rowan, 
Grundy, Woodbury, Livingston, Smith, 496-500. 

Foote, Henry S., of Miss., proposes territorial governments, 894. 

Forsyth, John, of Geo., on Indian bill, 517-21 ; secretary of state, 617. 

Fortification bill, with the three million amendment, 635-40. 

France, treaty of alliance with, 50; revolution in, our relations with, 109-10; 
Genet, the French minister, 112-18; G. Morris, minister to, recalled, and 
Monroe ajjpointed, 119 ; Colors of, presented, 141 ; dissatisfied with Jay 
treaty, 146 ; unlawful decree of, 160 ; envoys to, novel negotiation, non- 
intercourse act against, 161-5; negotiation with, resumed, 178; govern- 
ment of, again changed, 181 ; aggressions of, 216-18 ; Berlin and Milan 
decrees, 226-8 ; Rambouillet decree, 234 ; conditional repeal of decrees, 
235; continues restrictions, 241-2; decrees repealed, 258-9; Bourbons 
restored, 207 ; refuses to pay the stipulated indemnity, 630-2 ; reprisals 
suggested by the president, 630 ; and retaliation, 633 ; debate in senate, 
634-5 ; payment of indemnity, 640. 

Franklin, Benjamin, deputed to England with petitions, 39 ; commissioner to treat 
of peace, 51-2. 

Freneau, Philip, editor of National Gazette, 97, 105, 115. 

Frelinghuysen, Theodore, of N. J., on Indian bill, 514-15-17 ; candidate for vice- 
president, 809. 

French spoliation bill, 623. 

Fries, opposes tax law in Pennsylvania, 186-7. 

Funding public debt by continental congress, defeated, 53 ; (see public debt.) 

Fugitive slaves, in Canada, attempt to eff'ect their surrender, 468 ; law of 1850, 
for the capture of, 912. 

Gallatin, Albert, secretary of the treasury, 198; commissioner to Ghent, 264, 267; 
minister to England, 384 ; reports in favor of a bank, 281 ; favors re- 
newal, 501. 



INDEX. 1011 

Genet, Edmund C, French minister, arrival of, ccr iuct, and recall, 112-119. 

Georgia, act to settle limits with, 169 ; controversy with, about the Creeks, 361- 
374 ; and the Cherokees, 511, &c. 

Gerry, Elbridge, joint envoy to France, 162 ; vice-president, 262. 

Giddings, Joshua R., of Ohio, presents petition for division of the union, 766; 
resolutions of, relating to the Creole affair, 768-70 ; is censured, resigns, 
and is re-elected, 768-70; on Oregon question, in favor of " notice," 859. 

Giles, Wm. B., of Virginia, controversy with Adams, 429-41. 

Goodrich, Elizur, removal of, by Jefferson, 199. 

Gordon, Wm. F., of Virginia, proposes sub-treasury, 620. 

Gould, Judge, of Conn., publishes testimony against Adams, 456-8. 

Graham, Wm. A., of N. C, secretary of the navy, 910; candidate for vice-presi- 
dent, 938. 

Granger, Gideon, letter of Jefferson to, 201; postmaster-general, 198. 

Granger, Francis, candidate for lieutenant-governor of New York, and for gov- 
enor, 465 ; for vice-president, 677 ; postmaster-general, 744. 

Great Britain, instructions of, on trade with the colonies, 35 ; attempts to con- 
ciliate, difficulties with, 50, 55; policy of, 120; treaty with, 137; ag- 
gressions and new principles of, 216-18 ; treaty with, rejected, 221 ; 
orders in council, 226-8 ; negotiation with, (Erskine and Jackson,) 233- 
4 ; war declared against, 254 ; orders in council revoked, 259 ; negotia- 
tion of peace, 264, 267; treaty with, 300; claims of, on Pacific, 377; 
West India trade, 882, &c. ; navigation of St. Lawrence, 386-90 ; north- 
eastern boundary, 386, 784-6. 

Grundy, Felix, of Tennessee, on Foot's resolution, 498. 

Gunboats, Jefferson's plan of naval defense, 212, 213. 

Habersham, Joseph, postmaster-general, 136. 

Hamilton, Alexander, on removal from ofiice, 76 ; secretary of the treasury, 77 ; 
his character and Jefferson's descrilsed, 95-6 ; controversy with Jeffer- 
son, 97-101; letter to Washington, 102-3; charges against, 107, 133; 
report on public debt, and resignation, 136 ; opposes Adams, 180, 189, 
and Burr, 191. 

Harbor bill defeated by the president's not returning it, 561. 

Harrison, Wm. H., delegate from north-western territory, 188 ; nominated and 
elected president, 735-8 ; his inauguration and cabinet, 740-4 ; convenes 
congress, and dies, 744. 

Hartford convention, history of, 269-72. 

Harvey, Sir John, governor of Virginia colony, 27. 

Haywood, Wm. H., of N. C, instructed, and resigns, 873. 

Henry, John, agent in the British plot, 248-9. 

Henry, Patrick, envoy to France, (declined,) 179. 

Hill, Isaac, on branch mints, 629. 

Holland, dissatisfied with the Jay treaty, 147. 

Holmes, John, of Maine, on Van Buren's nomination, 653. 

Houston, Samuel, speech of, on Nebraska bill, 950. 

Impressment of American seamen by Great Britain, 218, 261. 

Independence declared, 47 ; declaration of, 953. 

Indiana, territory formed, 188; attempt to introduce slavery in, 209-10; divided, 

213 ; admission of, as a state, 282-3 ; claims the public lands within her 

limits, 474. 
Indians, north-western, war with, 94 ; treaty with, 140 ; Creeks and Georgia, 

361-74 ; Jackson's policy in relation to, 510, &c. ; bill for removal of, 

514,524; Cherokee memorial, 525; case in supreme court, 627; last 

controversy, 555. 
Ingersoll, Jarcd, voted for as vice-president, 262 
Ingham, Samuel D., secretary of state, resignation, &c., 548-62. 
Insolvent and bankrupt laws, decision on, 308. 
Interior, department of, established, 891. 



1012 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Internal improvement, bill passed and vetoed, 283-4 ; another bill vetoed, 309 ; 
Cumberland road bill, vetoed, 311-12 ; Maysville, and the Washington 
i-oad bills vetoed, Hemphill's report on vetoes, 606, 608 ; improvement 
and harbor bills vetoed, 561. 

Iowa, admitted as a state, 831. 

Jackson, Andrew, establishes martial law at New Orleans, 277-9 ; correspondence 
with Monroe, 284-8; conduct in Florida war investigated, and his de- 
fense, 293-8 ; nominated for president by Tennessee legislature, and con- 
demns appointment of members of congress, 391-2 ; accuses Clay and 
Adams, 393 ; letters to Indiana legislature and Doctor Coleman, on 
tariff and internal improvement, 401-3 ; elected president, 469-70 ; inau- 
guration and cabinet, 477 ; controversy with Calhoun, 536, &c. ; dissolu- 
tion of his cabinet, 548 ; re-elected president, 564-5 ; vetoes bank bill, 
567 ; protest against Clay's resolution, 607 ; asks for reprisals against 
France, 633 ; death of, 832. 

Jay, John, minister to Spain, 51 ; secretary of foreign affairs, 56 ; minister to 
Great Britain, 132-4 ; concludes treaty, 137. (See Great Britain and 
treaties.) 

Jefferson, Thomas, minister to France, 56; secretary of state, 77 ; his and Hamil- 
ton's characters described, 96-7 ; controversy between, 95-101 ; letter to 
Washington, 104; his commercial report, and resignation, 122-4; letter 
to Mazzei, 150 ; requests Madison to oppose Adams, 167-8 ; elected 
president, 191-2 ; inauguration, 198 ; cabinet, appointments and re- 
movals, 198-202 ; re-elected, 212, and inaugurated, 214; opinions of 
Adams and Jackson, 428, &c. 

Johnson, Cave, postmaster-general, 832. 

Johnson, Richard M., report of, on Jackson's case, 293; mediation and testimonj 
in cabinet difRcuUv, 550-2. 

Judicial act, new, (Adams'), and repealed, 190. 

Judiciary act of 1789, 77 ; assailed, 632-3. 

Kendall, Amos, agent to select state banks to receive deposits, 592. 

Kentucky, admitted as a state, 92; resolutions of 1799, 172-6. 

King, Rufus, succeeded by Monroe, at London, 208 ; proposes anti-slavery pro- 
viso for north-western territory, 58 ; resolution of, proposing to colonize 
the free negroes, 363. 

King, Wm. R,, of Ala., president of senate, pro. tem., 910; vice-president, 937. 

Knox, Henry, secretary of war, 77 ; resignation of, 136. 

Lands, western, ceded to general government, 57, 85 ; public, (see public lands.) 

Laurens, Henry, commissioner to treat with Great Britain, 52. 

Laws, change of publishers of, 381. 

Lee, Charles, of Va., attorney- general, 140. 

Leigh, Benj. W., of Va., sent as mediator to S. Carolina, 583; on expunging reso- 
lutions, 622; on distribution, 625. 

Lexington and Concord, battle of, 46. 

Little Democrat, and Genet, 117. 

Livingston, Edward, on Foot's resolution, (powers of government,) 498-9; secre- 
tary of state, 648 ; minister to France, 592 ; letter about Stevenson's 
mission, 617-8 ; correspondence with duke de Broglie,and returns from 
France, 632. 

Livingston, Robert R., minister to France, and joint negotiator for Louisiana, 204. 

Louisiana, purchase of, 203-8; division and boundary of, 209-11; territorial gov- 
ernment of, established, 214. 

Madison, James, in constitutional convention, 63, 70,71, 72, 74; on funding 
debt, 80; on bank, 90, 501-2; commercial resolutions of, 124; his 
speech on, 126-8 ; president, 233 ; his war spirit questioned, 249-60; 
re-nominated, 250, and re-elected, 262; letters on the constitutionality 
and expediency of protection, 978-81; views of nullification, 981; on 
the nature of the union, 982 ; on the binding influence of judicial de- 
cisions, and the constitutionality of the bank, 984-6; death of, 656. 



INDEX. 1013 

Maine, admitted as a state, 316-17. 

Mallary, Rollin C, on woolens bill, 405-6. 

Manufactures, j)rohibited in colonies, 36 ; encouraged by Washington, 53 ; Jef- 
ferson, 198, 868 ; Madison, 124, 126-7, 978-81 ; Monroe, 284 ; Jack&on. 402-8 ; 
868-9. 

Marcy, Wm. L., on Van Buren's nomination, 553-4; secretary of war, 832 ; secre- 
tary of state, 999. 

Markley, testimony of, respecting the coalition, 396. 

Marshall, John, joint envoy to France, 162; secretary of state, 188; chief justice 
of supreme court, 1000. 

Martial law, at New Orleans, 277-9. 

Mason, John Y., attorney-general, 832. 

Massachusetts, colony, settlement and government of, 23, 

Massachusetts, state, and Connecticut, controversy with general government dur- 
* ing the war of 1812, 263. 

Maryland, colony, settlement and government of, 30. 

Mazzei, Jefferson's letter to, 150. 

M'Duffie, George, report of, on bank, 500, &c. ; on protection, 509-10; on bank, 
506 ; on removal of deposits, 602 ; on the power of congress relating to 
internal improvements and protection, 990-1. 

M'Lane, on woolens bill, 406 ; minister to Great Britain, 481 ; negotiates West 
India trade, 528-30 ; secretary of treasury, 548; secretary of state, 592 ; 
resigns, 617 ; minister to England, 832. 

M'Lean, John, postmaster- general, 1000; justice of supreme court, 477 ; declines 
candidacy for president, 564. 

Mediation, oftered by Spain, 50; by Russia, 264, 267 ; by Great Britain, 639-40. 

Mediterranean fund, 210, 220. 

Members of congress, appointment of, condemned by Jackson, 392 ; number ap- 
pointed, 480; rule of apportionment of, 966; compensation of, 1001. 

Mexico, claims agjiinst, default in payment of, 738; minister from, protests 
against annexation of Texas, and departs, offers conditionally to recog- 
nize ind. of Texas, 833 ; is delinquent on indemnity ; Slidell sent to ne- 
gotiate, and returns, 834-5 ; war against, announced, G. Davis' speech, 
proposals to negotiate, and two million project, 836-7 ; war with, aflFects 
Great Britain, Polk's message, and Santa Anna's treaty, 840; treaty 
with, 848. (See war with Mexico.) 

Michigan, territory formed, 213 ; state of, admitted, 656-61. 

Military academy at West Point established, 202. 

Militia-men, execution of, by Jackson, 467. 

Mint, branches of, established ; Hill and Benton on, 629-30. 

Mississippi river, navigation of, 52, 140. 

Mississippi territory, government provided for, 169. 

Mississippi, state of, admitted, 283. 

Missouri territory, (till then called Louisiana,) government provided for, in 1812; 
application for admission ; compromise, 313, &c. ; admitted as a state, 
319. 

Monroe, James, minister to France, 119; recalled, 148; joint negotiation for 
Louisiana, 206 ; minister to England, 208 ; with Pinkney negotiates 
treaty, 221-2 ; discussion with Foster, 235-40; nominated for president, 
282 ; election and inaugural of, 284 ; correspondence with Jackson, 
285-8 ; northern tour, 289. Died, July 4, 1831. 

Morgan, William, abduction of, 463. 

Morris, Gouverneur, member of constitutional convention, 67 ; minister to France, 
recalled, 119. 

Murray, William Vans, minister to Netherlands, 160 ; envoy to France, 179. 

Nashville convention, proposed, 827-8. 

National Intelligencer established, 170. 

Naturalization acts, 203. 

Navigation acts of Great Britain, 35 ; of U. S., 75, 283. 

Navy, encouraged by Washington, 153 ; department established, 166. 

Nebraska and Kansas territories formed; bills for, debated, and passed, 942-52. 



1014 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

New Hami^shire, colony of, settled, 23. 

New Jersey, colony, settlement of, 32. 

New York, colony, settlement of, 29. 

Neutrality acts, 133, 283. 

Neutral rights, doctrines of France, concernirg, 25'2-3. 

N'jw Mexico, pra'ys ag-Jnst oeinr, incladed in T.xas, territjria yoverjmeD-^ for, 
905 ; biil pajTsed, 911. 

Non-importing association, 41-2. 

Non-intercourse with St. Domingo, 220 ; with Great Britain and France, 232-5 ; 
repealed, 266. 

North-eastern boundary, attempt to settle by arbitration, 286; settled, 784-6. 

Nullification, advocated by senator Hayne and others. (See debate on Foot's re- 
solutions, and South Carolina ; also, Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.) 

Ohio, state of, admitted, 203. 

Orders in council, British, 226-8; revoked, 259. 

Ordinance of 1787, 58-9. 

Oregon, occupation of, 377, &c. ; right to, asserted by democratic convention, 810- 
11 ; bill for giving notice to Great Britain, lost, 815-16; negotiation, and 
position of the administration, 849-50; compromise offered and declined, 
850-1 ; resolutions to terminate joint occupancy, 851-2 ; course of Adams, 
Giddings, and other whigs, 852-60 ; resolution to give notice passed, 860 ; 
failure of the attempt to mediate, announced, 760-1 ; debate on title, in 
the senate, 863-5; government for, Dix and Calhoun, Clayton's bill, a 
bill passed, 884-8 ; other territorial bills, again lost, 888-9. 

Orleans territory formed, importation of slaves prohibited, 209 ; government of, 
213. 

Panama mission, 352, &c. 

Parties in convention, federalists and anti-federalists, 73. 

Patterson, William, in convention, plan of, for constitution, 62. 

Patriot war, 712; Caroline affair. Van Buren's proclamation, 713-14 ; trial of 
M'Kenzie and Van Rensselaer, 714-15 ; trial of M'Leod,7l5,and acquit- 
ted, 722 ; case before congress, 117-22. 

Peace with Great Britain, 52 ; negotiation for, at Ghent, 264, 267 ; concluded. 
274-7. 

Peck, James H., judge, impeachment and trial of, 533-4. 

Pennsylvania, settled by Wm. Penn, 32. 

Pensacola, and St. Marks, taken by Jackson, 290-2. 

Pickering, Timothy, secretary of war, 136; secretary of state, 140. 

Picture of battle of New Orleans, proposed, 467. 

Pierce, Franklin, nomination of, for president, 937 ; election of, and inauguration, 
939-40 ; message to congress, 940-1. 

Pinckney, C. C, minister to France, 148, 162; reception refused, 155; candidate 
for president, 191. 

Pinckney, Tliomas, at London, succeeded by Rufus King, 146. 

Pinkney, William, and Monroe, treat with Great Britain, 221-2. 
, Platforms of parties in 1852, 938-9. 

Plumer, Wm., of N. H., testimony in favor of Adams, 455. 

Polk, James K., on removal of deposits, 603-4; speaker, 754; nominated for 
president, 809 ; protest and confidential circular against, 811 ; election 
of, 814 ; his inauguration and cabinet, 831-2 ; annour.ces war, 836. 

Porter, Peter B., reports in favor of increasing means of defense, 249. 

Postage, law, to reduce, 831. 

Post oflSce investigation, 531 ; abuses in. detected, 615-16. 

Poindexter, George, of Miss., on president's protest, 608 ; resolutions of, 610; on 
expunging the journal, 621. 

President, how elected, 975-6; plan for choosing electors of, 970; his powers and 
duties, 971-2. 

Princeton, war vessel, explosion of, killing secretaries Upshur and Gilmer, 799. 

Pro])rietary government, 30. 

Protests of South Carolina and Georgia against tariff, 470-1. 



INDEX 1015 

Provincial, or royal governments, 26. 

Public debt, attempt to fund, 52 ; amount, and funding c 9, 78-85 ; of states, as- 
sume'!, 86 ; Hamilton's reyort on, and act, 136 ; sinking fund, 283. 

Public lands, distributiou of, proceeds of, 472, 474-5; subject of, referred to com- 
mittee on manufactures, and reported on, 559-60; act to distribute pro- 
c;eds ' f, 75". (?oe ai'' icles revenue and distribution.) 

Puliishe's of laws, uhanr.e of, ander Adams, 381. 

Puritan, origin of name, 22. 

Rambouillet, decree, (French,) 234. 

Randolph, Edmund, in convention, proposes a plan for a constitution, 60-2; 

attornej'-general, 77 ; secretary of state, 124. 
Randolph, John, minister to Russia, 530-1. 
Ratification of the constitution, 75. 

Reform and retrenchment, (see retrenchment and reform). 
Removals from office, power of, 76 ; by Jefferson, 198-202 ; by Jackson, 478-9 ; 

extent and power of, 480-484; speeches by Webster and White on, 

627-9. 
Representation and slavery, 966; debate on, in convention, 64-71. 
Representatives, apportionment of, 93, 202, 563-4. 
Resolutions, of Clay, on removal of deposits, 605 ; of Poindexter on protest, 610; 

Virginia and Kentucky in 1798, and 1799, 172, &c. 
Revenue, power of congress to provide, 968 ; bill to insure collection of, 509; 

surplus, distribution of, recommended by Jackson, 482 ; Dickerson'B 

plan, 472 ; new plan to distribute, adopted, 654-6. 
Rhode Island, settlement of, 24. 

Ritchie, Thomas, letter of, concerning Stevenson's appointment, 618. 
Right of instruction, Clay's remarks on, 347. (See Note I., Appendix.) 
Roger Williams, settles in Rhode Island, 24. 
Rose, British minister, 224-5. 

Rowan, of Ky., on Foot's resolution, (powers of government,) 496-7. 
♦ Royal or provincial governments, described, 26. 

Russia, claims of, on the Pacific, 374 ; treaty with, 376. 

Santa Anna, treaty with Texas, 840; permitted by Polk to pass the blockade; re- 
sumes military command, and presidency, 841. 

Scott, Winfield, nominated for president, 938. 

Seamen, disabled, act for relief of, 169; impressment of, (see impressment). 

Beat of government, established, 85-6. 

Sedition and alien laws, 170-7. 

Seminole war, 289, &c. ; second war, inquiry into, proposed, 688 ; bloodhoundB 
employed, jilan to extirpate the Indians, war terminated, 733-4. 

Sergeant, John, candidate for vice-president, 564. 

Sinking fund, appropriation for, 203 ; established, 283. 

Slavery, and representation, debate on, in convention, 64-71 ; provision for, 966. 

Slavery, in the District of Columbia, petition of citizens of, to abolish, 468-9 
(See abolition.) 

Slave trade, prohibited, 225-6 ; in District of Columbia, 912. 

Slaves, fugitive, in Canada, attempt to procure their surrender by Great Britain, 
468. 

Slidell, John, minister to Mexico, not received, 834-5. 

Smith, Robert, of Md., secretary of state, 233 ; resigns, his expose of administra- 
tion in controversy with France and England, 243-7. 

Smith, Samuel, of Md., on Van Buren's nomination, 553. 

Smith, Wm., of S. C, speech of, on Madison's resolutions, 124-6. 

Southard, Samuel L., on expunging resolution, 622. 

South Carolina, prepares to resist the collection of duties, 566-7 ; Jackson's pro- 
clamation, 577-81 ; act of resistance passed, and military preparations, 
582; Virginia mediates, 583-5-6. 

Spain, offers to mediate between U. S. and Great Britain, 50; declines proposals 
for treaty, 51 ; boundary dispute with, 56 ; treaty with, 110 ; dissatisfied 
with Jay's treaty, 147, and with the purchase of Louisiana, 209. 



I 016 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Spain, refuses to ratifj" a treaty of indemnity, 210 ; consents to the transfer cf 
Louisiana, 211 ; aggressions of, 216; negotiations with, 221; treaties 
with, 299-301; ratification of, delayed, 302-3. 

Spealvcr of the house, long contest for, 893, &c. ; suspension of, 272 : resumed, 
282. 

Specie circular of 1838, 666; Ewing's motion to rescind, debate on, bill passed, 
and vetoed, 668-72 ; repealed, 702. 

Spoliations, French, hill to pay claims for, 623 ; Adams' proposition, respecting 
the delay of France to pay indemnity, 631. 

Sprague, Pelcg, of Maine, speech on Indian bill, 621-6, 

Stamp act, 37, 161. 

State governments, during the revolution, 49. 

St. Clair, Gen., defeat of, by western Indians, 94. 

St. Domingo, non-intercourse with, 220. 

St. Marks and Pensacola, taken by Jackson, 290-2. 

Stevenson, Andrew, speaker of the house, 1001 ; rejected as minister to England, 
617-18. 

Stewart, Andrew, speech of, on woolens bill, 407 ; on tariff of 1846, 668-71. 

Stoddart, Benj., of Md., secretary of the navy, 160. 

Sub-treasury, origin of, 620 ; recommended by Van Buren, 679 ; debated and 
lost, again defeated, 689; speeches of Tallmadge, Calhoun, Clay, and 
Webster, 690-702 ; established, 732 ; act repealed, 747 ; re-established, 
874. 

Suppressed documents, in relation to the controversy with France and England, 
229-31. 

Supreme court, opinion of, on bank question, 305, &c. ; on insolvent and bank- 
rupt laws, 308 ; in case of the Cherokees, 557 ; in case of Amistad cap- 
tives, 727. 

Taxation, right of, claimed by Great Britain, 33, 39 ; John Adams' sentiments on, 
34; stamp act, glass, paper, &c., taxed, and acts resisted, 37-41; tax 
law of congress opposed in Pennsylvania, 180-7. 

Talleyrand, French minister of foreign affairs, 162, 164-5. 

Taney, Roger B., attorney-general, 548 ; appointed secretary of the treasury, and 
removes the deposits, 594 ; nomination of, rejected, 617. 

Tariff of 1816, 279-81 ; vote on bill of 1820, 321-3; of 1824, proceedings on 322- 
40; Clay's speech, 323, &c. ; Webster's, against, 331, &c. ; Philadelphia 
meeting, on defeat of woolens bill, 412 ; Harrisburg convention, 412-14; 
of 1828, 414-18; southern feeling, 419-20; attempt at the session of 
1830-1; to revise, 534-6 ; of 1832, reports on, bills, and passage of, 
562-3 ; Verplank's bill, and Clay's compromise, of 1832-3, 583-7 ; bills 
and reports in 1842, of committee on manufactures, and of secretary 
of the treasury, 770-9 ; distribution proviso, 770; bill vetoed, 780; re- 
port of com. of thirteen, bill passed and approved, 782-3 ; attempt to 
repeal, 828; prices of goods at Richmond, 829 ; attacked in 1846, by the 
president and secretary of the treasury, 865-8; Stewart's reply, 868 ; 
bill reported, amended, passed, 871-3. 

Tassels, George, an Indian, execution of, 527. 

Taylor, General, locates army at Corpus Cristi; is ordered to the Rio Grande, 
835 ; named for jn-esident, nominated, proceedings of convention, 874-9 ; 
letter to Alison, 879 ; disaffection of the whigs ; Buffalo convention, 880-1 ; 
letters of Albany meeting, election, 882-3 ; inauguration, and cabinet, 
892 ; message to congress, 894 ; his death, 910. 

Territory aciiuired from Mexico, propositions for government of, 894, &c. ; Bell's 
resolutions, committee of thirteen, report of, 943-4. 

Texas, independence of, recognized, 662-5 ; Preston's resolutions for annexation, 
and speech, 703-4 ; Adams' speech, 709-11 ; proposition to annex, with- 
drawn, 712; annexation of, revived; treaty concluded, and rejected, 
78G-'J0 ; Benton's resolution, and debate on, 790-S ; president appeals to 
the house, 798 ; letter of Clay on annexation of, 799-802 ; letter of Van 
Buren, 803-8 ; propositions for annexation, and a bill passed, 816-21 ; 
discussion. 821-7 : Nashville convention proposed, 827-8. 



INDEX. 1017 

Texas, annexation effected, 830 ; protest of Mexican minister, 833; Benton on 
Texas and New Mexico boundary bill, 905-9 ; controversy with Texas ; 
boundary bill passed, 911. 

Treasury circular, (see specie circular,) issue of, authorized, 684-7, 739, 841. 

Treaty, with Great Britain, (Jay's,) 137 ; call of the house for correspondence, and 
refused by the president, 142-3 ; treaty negotiated by Pinliney and Mon- 
roe, and rejected, 221-2. 

Tripoli, relations with, 202. 

Tyler, John, report of, on charges against the bank, 619-20 ; on French spolia- 
tion bill, 623 ; nominated vice-president, 735 ; his political opinions, 
737 ; election, 738 ; becomes president, 745 ; vetoes bank bills, 748-9 ; 
resignation and statements of his secretaries, 749-52 ; new cabinet, 754 ; 
vetoes tariff bill, 780. 

Union, dissolution of, prayed for, 756 ; attempt to censure Adams, 757-66 ; Qid- 

dings presents a similar petition, 766. 
United States Gazette, Fenno's, 97 ; Fenno's death, 185. 
Upshur, Abel P., secretary of the navy, 754 ; of state, 999; correspondence of, 

relating to annexation, 787-8 ; death o^ 799. 
Utah, territory, government for, established, 904.' 

Vail, Aaron, charge of affairs in England, 617. 

Van Buren, secretary of state, 477; resigns, 548; appointed minister to England, 
552; nominated and rejected, 553; nominated for vice-president, 564; 
and elected, 565 ; casting vote of, on bill against mailing anti-slavery 
papers, 653 ; elected president, his inauguration, 676-7 ; money pressure, 
bank suspension, 678 ; convenes congress, recommends sub-treasury, 
679 ; sundry bills reported, fourth instalment of surplus revenue to be 
withheld, 680; sub-treasury bill lost, 687, and again, 689; (see sub- 
treasury;) renominated, 735; letter on annexation, 803-8; nomination 
by Utica and Buffalo conventions, 881. 
*Veto, power of, 968 ; applied to bank bill, 273, (Madison) ; internal improvement 
bills, 284, 309, 311, (Madison and Monroe) ; Maysville and Washington 
road bills, 506, 508, (Jackson) ; bank and land bills, 567, 5S7, (Jack- 
son) ; bank bills, 748-9, (Tyler) ; tarifi" bills, and debate on, 780, 782, 
(Tyler) ; distribution bill, by retaining it, 784. 

Vienna, congress of, 51. 

Virginia, settlement and government of, 26 ; resolutions of 1798, 172-6. 

Walker, Robert J., of Miss., secretary of the treasury, 832; report of, on tariff 
in 1846. 

War, with Indians, defeat of St. Clair, 94 ; war of revolution, causes of, 33, &c. ; 
Madison's war message of 1812, 251 ; war i-eport, 252 ; declaration of, 
254; address of minority of congress, 254-8 ; (see Seminole war, Florida 
war, and patriot war ;) with Mexico, act authorizing loans and treasury 
notes, 841-2 ; debate on three million bill, and the objects and origin of 
the war, by Calhoun, Benton, and Clayton, 842-5 ; principles involved, 
remarks of Corwinand Rhett, 846-8; war terminated, treaty, 848. 

Washington, commander-in-chief, 46 ; president, 75 ; letters to Hamilton and 
Jefferson, 101-3 ; refuses to comply with a call for correspondence re- 
specting the Jay treaty, 143; his suspicions of Jefierson, 149; charged 
with monarchism by Jefferson, 150 ; forged letters against, 151 ; retire- 
ment of, and denunciation of, by Aurora newspaper, 156 ; again com- 
mander-in-chief, 166 ; died, December 14, 1799- 

Washington, Federalist newspaper, 199. 

Washington, city of, seat of government, 85, 86 ; capitol at, burned, 268. 

Warehouse act, passed, 873. 

Webster, Daniel, opposes tariff, 280 ; on Foot's resolution, 894; on expunging 
resolution, 622; on power of removal, 626-8; on spoliation bill, 623; 
on postponing fourth instalment, 681-2 ; ai)pointed secretary of state, 
744 ; letter of, on cabinet resignations, 754 ; speech of, on compromise of 
1850, 809-902 ; his death, 937. 



101 S THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 

Western lands, ceded to general government, 58, 85. 

West India trade, 382, &c. ; Gallatin sent to England ; negotiation cut off, 884 , 
treaty, 38G ; M 'Lane's arrangement, 528-30; relief from the eflects of, 
the treaty prayed for, 784. 

Whisky insurrection in western Pennsylvania, 105, 106. 

White, Hugh L., on Indian bill, 514-15; on expunging resolution, 622; on re- 
movals, 628-9. 

Wirt, William, attorney-general, 1000; nominated by anti-masons for president, 
564. 

Wolcott, secretary of the treasnry, 136. 

Woolens bill, of 1827, 403, &c. 

Woodbury, Levi, on Foot's resolution (powers of government,) 498 ; secretary of 
the navy, 548 ; secretary of the treasury, 617. 

Wright, Silas, on spoliation bill, 623; reports sub-treasury, 680; remarks on 
postponing fourth instalment of the surplus revenue, 689. 



3477 



,^^ -^^. 





/V''='^'°'\\^' 




' f, C'^ V < 




%..^^* y 






•'-J^ ' II ' 


, ^ " ,o ^ -/ 


,'% '% 


cP"^ .y"I " *;^. 


^0^ - 






V > 










^- ■^'^^- 






's^A ^r) 




,Cv\ M > f „ -7^ 


'-f^ 


■-^^ o 


'r^. 


aN 



■^, /- 






'•■^^. *8>a'\n^^ .,„ . -/._"•. 



.-^^' 






.'«^%"^^ .0^ 









G ,- V r ^^ '^ ^. n' \ 






■0' :." 









vOo. 












%S^ 






.0^ 






■^ 



y-^T-^ 









x'^' 



x'^ ^^■^- 



A- 












s A -O 






.0 






,0 o^ 






0.^»^ .>' A.N'-' 



•^, ' 






^^. ,^^'=' 



-^o .^"^ c. <"^ ^— ■"- 









*^ -^ ' ^ „ „ ■> - v' 



-::< , ' l^- 



\ 



^-^ -'<> 












^ ft 



o.^^- •^^, %-^^-~ .. ^ ^' c.^': 






x't' 



.#■ 



*A*A ■ % 












N c , <;> ' » o *> .S\\ < I '. - 



■^^^v 






<x^% 



> „ ^ " o 



.0 0^ 



v\- 



-^ " 3 N O 









> ,0' s-^ " z^/, *C- ' V' 

■^ ,<^ " ^ ^:r. aV 









.\ 



V 



.-^ .> 






^o 












0' c 



o N c 









\V<A„ 









^ ' 3 N - ^^^ 



<. ^, 






•^ 






\^ 









o>' 



- V 




^^ << 


^' ■^y>. . 




: ,s^-^ 


•^^, ^ 




0^ 




■"o 0^ 








''- 








,^ 









.\' * 












^^^ 






.,^^ 

><^. 



x'^' 


















o 



sOo, 



.■^ 


















A 



■<r^^" 






>^^ 



\ 1 8 4 -7' 



^■^' --\^.fm^\ -^ ^ 



0- ."^ 



p 



o 0' 



X^^^. 









xO' 



<>>:. 










o 


0^ 










-r. 






^ 


'P^ 


^ 


N 





'■ /■ 




%/ 






V> ^^ 


" "/ 


^ 









^ %.^' */^^^^ %/" 



^^ v^ 






.0^^ 



s^ -^^ 



§ 






-0' 



o 0' 



A <n 



